DP's way of handling Instrument tracks and MIDI

[Michael Canavan]

In a sense, LogicPro is structured more like DP specifically when DP is being used with a single sequence of MIDI tracks that are bundle-connected to instrument tracks in a single V-Rack. However, its a tighter connection, in so much that in LogicPro you can automate plugin parameters of plugins that are hosted in a V-Rack...which we can't do today in DP primarily because that sequence->vrack connection is handled with a MIDI bundle.

Otherwise, LogicPro's multi-timbral setup is very similar as DP's with multiple tracks acting as MIDI tracks...feeding a single instrument channel...and they all have access to plugin parameter automation.....which DP can't do. I really do not see any inherent advantage that DP's old school limitations are a benefit.

Anyway, I don't really get why some of you old school folks are so set on having limited MIDI tracks for handling multi-timbral instruments. DP's MIDI tracks are completely blind about plugin parameter automation. That is the main problem, which is even worse of a problem when the instrument track is on a V-rack where it can't be automated at all. The secondary problem is that its annoying when you are not using V-Racks, that you have to setup a separate track for the instrument, resulting in 2x the number of tracks...

I find it interesting to note that in LogicPro it is possible to work either way. You can setup raw MIDI tracks that are cabled to instrument channels with 2x the number of tracks if you want too, that is their old school way...or you can use the new school way since Apple took over, which is to use something more akin to a set of multi-instrument tracks. Apple's new track wizards all use the new way of course. But its not that hard to do things the old way, I have setup numerous templates both ways. 99% of Logic users do not use it the old way....for a variety of reasons. that should tell you something.

Regarding LogicPro's summing stacks, they are hit and miss, I rarely use them myself. And you certainly don't have to if you don't want to, its just an option, you can setup nearly the same thing in DP, its just that there is not an automatic way to set it up with one menu click like there is in LogicPro...and DP doesn't treat the summed bus like a folder, as it does in LogicPro. So yes for that particular situation LogicPro is simple, quick and elegant..no question. On the flip side, its not nearly as flexible as DP's architecture unless you want to dig deep into the environment and then it is...but most users won't want to.

One thing that would be cool is if DP had the concept of a "patch" like LogicPro has, so that you could setup whatever kind of submix routing you want of a few channels, with instruments, etc..and save it as a patch so that next time it will be a one click operation to bring it back.

Logics vanilla MIDI tracks have to be wired to an instrument in the Environment to do what you describe earlier. Yes new users rarely do this because it's a PITA, I think at this point the only reason to do this is to cut down on CPU usage that the new method brings with it's more complex almost instrument tracks when you have dozens or hundreds of them wired to a VEP plugin for instance. I'm sure you know all this. `
So within that last paragraph is your answer, in DP a single MAS VEP plug in can host 768 generic MIDI tracks, since mostly we're talking about orchestral of folly stuff in VEP, (at least that's common tasks in my experience), so generic MIDI CC's are fine in this case.
I 100% get wanting to have V-Racks be able to host track automation (which is what you're using when you don't use MIDI automation), but all of this is relatively new. I can't recall, but some thing or another breaks the whole tied to tracks part of that type of automation, so I think it's now possible. In the past MOTU flatly stated that since V-Racks do not have tracks plug ins hosted in them can't use track automation.

Anyway, your ideas are cool, but I'm not getting anything in Logic like a V-Rack? That's... ? There's nothing CPU saving about the way Logic does multis, granted I'm making it sound like it's a big hit etc. but I'm just saying, there's no hit to a MIDI track pointing at a V-Rack, and it's not tied to the open Sequence in a V-Rack like a multi instrument setup is in Logic. Different birds.

[dewdman42]

Logics vanilla MIDI tracks have to be wired to an instrument in the Environment to do what you describe earlier.

I don't want this to become some kind of tribalistic DP vs Logic spinoff, that was not my intention. I am in the process of switching over from LogicPro to DP11 because of the advent of Articulation Maps, I am excited about using Chunks.

But this thread is not really about that, its about DP's handling of instrument tracks.

With that said... ALL tracks in LogicPro are "vanilla". None of them are typed. LogicPro always has a clear distinction between source track and the mixer channel where the plugin is hosted. In LogicPro, plugins are always hosted on mixer channels, not in the tracks area. As such, ALL tracks in LogicPro are cabled in the environment to mixer channels hosting plugins. But apple provided easy GUI options to do that cabling automatically behind the scenes for the common and usually preferred scenarios..whereas sometimes if you want to do something complicated you have to cable it yourself. Either way, the separation is always present.

Yes new users rarely do this because it's a PITA, I think at this point the only reason to do this is to cut down on CPU usage that the new method brings with it's more complex almost instrument tracks when you have dozens or hundreds of them wired to a VEP plugin for instance. I'm sure you know all this. `

There is no savings of CPU usage at all with any particular approach. LogicPro has its own issues, don't get me started, its more of a question that Apple was trying to make things more "intuitive" to use so they chose particular modes of operation that in the past involved getting your hands dirty in the environment to cable things together, but since LPX, you just use easy menus and such to create tracks, and it does all that for you behind the scenes. There are two particular ways that instrument tracks can be handled in LogicPro...an old school way...and the modern way which is what their nice new Apple-improved GUI stuff uses as the preferred approach.

First note that in LogicPro, the tracks sequencer area is completely separate from the mixer. They are two separate things. In the sequencer you have tracks, in the mixer you have channels. Plugins are hosted in the mixer channels, not in the sequence tracks.

Old School way is to create a MIDI instrument object in the environment, and cable that to an instrument channel in the mixer where a plugin is being hosted. Then the vanilla track is assigned to send its region data to the MIDI instrument object. In this situation, the track appears as if its an old school MIDI track that is completely separated from whatever it is sending MIDI to. And you will not see any plugin parameter on this kind of track either in order to automate them... The mixer will have two channel strips for this instrument, one that is a MIDI channel strip and another that is the instrument channel strip. This is very similar to DP's approach.

New School way, is to assign the track directly to the instrument channel that is hosting the plugin. In this scenario, the vanilla track becomes much more aware of aspects of the instrument channel, such that you can automate the channel completely, including plugin parameters. When that instrument channel is hosting a multi-instrument, then you can fork off more tracks on new MIDI channels (which under the covers involves creating new environment objects that are still pointing to the same underlying instrument plugin), and all of these tracks are directly connected to the instrument channel directly. So you can automate plugin parameters from any of them. This is where DP falls short.

So within that last paragraph is your answer, in DP a single MAS VEP plug in can host 768 generic MIDI tracks,

now you're forking on to more complexity with VePro, I wasn't talking about VePro no.

I 100% get wanting to have V-Racks be able to host track automation

To repeat again, that is not what I suggested. V-rack will never host track automation because they don't have time domain. The missing element in DP is not whether V-Racks themselves can automate anything. its that V-racks should be exposing plugin parameters of what they are hosting to the Sequence that is connected to them...so that the sequence can automate those plugin parameters. This is the missing piece.

A secondary desire would be for Sequences to have all-in-one instrument tracks so that when you aren't using V-Racks at all its not necessary to have 2x the number of tracks in the Sequence track list. I see that is being less important because DP provides awesome Track visibility and layout options to show/hide things very easily and excellent folder support; but I also see this is being very difficult to accommodate in DP if and when no V-Rack is being used. You still kind of need both a MIDI channel strip and instrument channel strip in DP's current paradigm. The best approach to isolate and seperate those would be to move all the instruments to a V-Rack..in which case its more similar to LogicPro's separation of power.. then you see your MIDI tracks in the sequence and your instrument tracks in the V-Rack. Its unfortunate that due to handicapped automation between sequence and V-rack, that means certain kinds of instruments cannot be hosted in a V-rack if you need to automate them.

but some thing or another breaks the whole tied to tracks part of that type of automation, so I think it's now possible.

I don't think its now possible. The current architecture only provides transmission of MIDI to the V-Rack....the MIDI track automation lanes also are not setup to reveal what the actual plugin parameters of the yonder plugins are in order to automate them (from the Sequence). If you know a way, please share with us, but people have been complaining about this off and on for years, I don't think it has actually changed....only misunderstanding of the problem has circulated, saying "V-Racks don't have tracks", for example. They don't have tracks, yet we can automate MIDI parameter in those plugins from the Sequence...but we can't automate non-MIDI plugin parameters. That is the missing piece today. Its not about adding tracks to V-Racks, its about exposing plugin parameters from the V-Rack to the Sequence so that they can be automated too.

And yes, sometimes this is necessary even for orch sample work, though not often. But more commonly this is a case when using synth plugins and things like that for sure. its also extremely necessary for automating FX plugins if they are in the V-Rack. Granted, you can move those to the AUX return and automate them there...but its often desirable to have the FX in the V-Rack so that the V-Rack mixer is a sort of pre-mixed setup including FX for a set of instruments... But....yet would be better if we could also automate any of those FX plugins if we want to.

Anyway, your ideas are cool, but I'm not getting anything in Logic like a V-Rack? That's... ?

The fundamental architecture of LogicPro is a simple client/server architecture...there is a separation between the tracks area and mixer.. The mixer functions like a DP V-Rack and the tracks area is where the sequencer is. Of course LogicPro is limited to only one Sequence and one VRack, but still they are two separate things rather then combined into one like a DP sequence can be, and you have tracks connected to Instrument channels in the mixer....just like when you have DP MIDI tracks connected to V-Rack instrument tracks. Its exactly the same paradigm.

And as I said already a few times, LogicPro can do that client/server relationship two different ways...one way, the old school way...is more like DP. The other new school way does it a little more cleverly so that the tracks have access to plugin parameters for automation and it appears more like a single direct instrument track in the tracks pane.

[Michael Canavan]

Of course LogicPro is limited to only one Sequence and one VRack, but still they are two separate things rather then combined into one like a DP sequence can be, and you have tracks connected to Instrument channels in the mixer....just like when you have DP MIDI tracks connected to V-Rack instrument tracks. Its exactly the same paradigm.

I get what you're saying, except for the "exactly" part. It's similar, but in real life vastly different. V-Racks aren't tied to Sequences, In logic the Environment is tied to a project, and one sequence. MOTU flatly stated that what you're referring to as plug in parameters, the method used outside of MIDI, was called track automation for years, and MOTU's answer was that type of automation wasn't possible for V-Racks.

I think they're wrong, but I don't think it would be anywhere near as easy for DP to get V-Racks to expose that type of automation as it was for Logic to create a front end for the Environment that did all the wiring for you. Otherwise we would have seen it already I would think.

its that V-racks should be exposing plugin parameters of what they are hosting to the Sequence that is connected to them...so that the sequence can automate those plugin parameters. This is the missing piece.

I would love to see this, but I'm somewhat ambivalent. It's possible they tried this and loading a new Sequence Chunk took forever compared or sometimes crashed etc. It's also possible that it's still in the horizon.

I used Logic from 4.7 til about 8.0. Switched from DP 2.7, switched back fully at DP7. I got upset at some Apple-i-zation that happened with the Mixer that really bothered me, basically at 8 they tied the Hide function to both the Arrange and the Mixer, so tracks you didn't need in the Arrange had to be there if you wanted them in the Mixer, because noobs might get lost? I could never figure out why they did that?

[dewdman42]

and MOTU's answer was that type of automation wasn't possible for V-Racks.

I think they're wrong,

As do I, but again, my opinion is that these discussions in the past have been lost in a mire of confusion with people talking past each other. The problem to solve is not to put automation lanes in V-Racks! That is what MOTU has said they won't do, and I agree. But that is not what people need. People need access to plugin parameters from the sequence that is sending it MIDI now.

And its totally doable, its only a matter of will.

[Michael Canavan]

And its totally doable, its only a matter of will.

Will as time and money, then yep. Oh I remembered! VEP 7 sends track style automation parameter hooks to the host DAW! That's proof of concept that MOTU is wrong that this type of automation needs to be tied to a track or can't be done as a separate entity.

[dewdman42]

And its totally doable, its only a matter of will.

Oh I remembered! VEP 7 sends track style automation parameter hooks to the host DAW! That's proof of concept that MOTU is wrong that this type of automation needs to be tied to a track or can't be done as a separate entity.

yes

[frankf]

I put all my instrument tracks in a v-rack, controlled by a MIDI track in the sequence and return the audio to a mix via an Aux track is where I automate, add plugs etc.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

This workflow is unfortunately miserable for synth (or other) plugins which require parameter automation. Even using MIDI Learn is prohibitively time-consuming if you just want to draw automation curves (essentially you have to make a scratch track, route it to the V-Rack, draw some automation on the CC lane you want and solo it -- just to get the instrument to map that CC).

I have about 10 different UX ideas which would fit into the current workflow, but I have no doubt that the DP devs have them all written down already in a dusty "when we get around to it" file somewhere.

Maybe i wasn’t clear. All MIDI automation is done in the MIDI track. I don’t understand “scratch track”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[sockmonkey]

I put all my instrument tracks in a v-rack, controlled by a MIDI track in the sequence and return the audio to a mix via an Aux track is where I automate, add plugs etc.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

This workflow is unfortunately miserable for synth (or other) plugins which require parameter automation. Even using MIDI Learn is prohibitively time-consuming if you just want to draw automation curves (essentially you have to make a scratch track, route it to the V-Rack, draw some automation on the CC lane you want and solo it -- just to get the instrument to map that CC).

I have about 10 different UX ideas which would fit into the current workflow, but I have no doubt that the DP devs have them all written down already in a dusty "when we get around to it" file somewhere.

Maybe i wasn’t clear. All MIDI automation is done in the MIDI track. I don’t understand “scratch track”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

All I mean is, if I want to create parameter automation for a V-Rack instrument via MIDI, and that instrument requires MIDI Learn in order to understand incoming MIDI for parameter automation, I would need to create a temporary "scratch track" containing solo CC data in order to create the map. Or an external MIDI controller, which is an easier method. But sometimes you just want to draw in automation without requiring an external controller. Anyway, my only point is that the MIDI workaround is awkward and indirect.

Any software feature which requires an asterisk and a long explanation about why it's only really appropriate, useful or convenient in case A or case B, but not in cases C-Z due to reasons is IMHO incomplete and deserves some additional work to make it as good as its promise.

[syntonica]

Unfortunately, MIDI CC is often an unacceptable substitute. It only has a range of 128 values and is steppy--i.e., easily heard by the listener if the values need to be swept. Direct parameter automation is the better method, giving well over a million discrete values. It would take quite the golden ear to hear any steppiness.

While this makes for two separate automation methods (using 0-127 vs floats from 0.0 to 1.0), there's no reason why DP can't unite the two using the latter scale. When sending MIDI, round to the nearest valid value. Then, it's just a matter of routing--either drop the CC change into the MIDI stream or send the parameter change directly to the targeted plugin, whether it's on an instrument track or it''s in a V-rack. MOTU may be doing some hocus pocus behind the V-rack curtain that makes this tricky, but I can't imagine it's insurmountable.

Regarding having separate MIDI and VI tracks, I like how it's done, but maybe just a bit of makeup will do. A quick way to toggle the display to a single track from two and then back again when rendering.

[Michael Canavan]

Unfortunately, MIDI CC is often an unacceptable substitute. It only has a range of 128 values and is steppy--i.e., easily heard by the listener if the values need to be swept. Direct parameter automation is the better method, giving well over a million discrete values. It would take quite the golden ear to hear any steppiness.

While this makes for two separate automation methods (using 0-127 vs floats from 0.0 to 1.0), there's no reason why DP can't unite the two using the latter scale. When sending MIDI, round to the nearest valid value. Then, it's just a matter of routing--either drop the CC change into the MIDI stream or send the parameter change directly to the targeted plugin, whether it's on an instrument track or it''s in a V-rack. MOTU may be doing some hocus pocus behind the V-rack curtain that makes this tricky, but I can't imagine it's insurmountable.

I'm curious where you came up with your numbers? All I have to go on is Kore which had a resolution of 500 vs the 128 for MIDI.

Regarding having separate MIDI and VI tracks, I like how it's done, but maybe just a bit of makeup will do. A quick way to toggle the display to a single track from two and then back again when rendering.

I love this idea. IMO this is the perfect compromise. My only apprehension would be I hope it would be done fully, I think we're not all the way there with Clips and how they interact with other MIDI editors, Score, Drum, Graphic and Event editors don't see Clips at all. So to loop MIDI you pack into Clips, to edit MIDI in the timeline you need to unpack it or be happy with the Clip Editor.

So theoretically you could have a preference to pack MIDI into an instrument track, maybe even all the MIDI tracks for a multi even, and when or if you send that instrument to a V-Rack it leaves behind the MIDI tracks and plug in (track) automation tracks. Like dewdman42 was mentioning this is sort of how Logic works, but without the Chunks feature.

Hopefully if any of this does happen it does so in a more elegant way than Logic for sure. I really appreciate the transparency of DP's Articulation Maps compared to Logics way.

[sockmonkey]

Unfortunately, MIDI CC is often an unacceptable substitute. It only has a range of 128 values and is steppy--i.e., easily heard by the listener if the values need to be swept. Direct parameter automation is the better method, giving well over a million discrete values. It would take quite the golden ear to hear any steppiness.

While this makes for two separate automation methods (using 0-127 vs floats from 0.0 to 1.0), there's no reason why DP can't unite the two using the latter scale. When sending MIDI, round to the nearest valid value. Then, it's just a matter of routing--either drop the CC change into the MIDI stream or send the parameter change directly to the targeted plugin, whether it's on an instrument track or it''s in a V-rack. MOTU may be doing some hocus pocus behind the V-rack curtain that makes this tricky, but I can't imagine it's insurmountable.

I'm curious where you came up with your numbers? All I have to go on is Kore which had a resolution of 500 vs the 128 for MIDI.

It's a 32-bit floating point value between 0 and 1 (at least for VSTs, not sure offhand what the AU spec says), how it's interpreted is implementation-dependent. Could be 2 values (off/on), or could be the full 32-bit IEEE 754 range between 0 and 1. https://lemire.me/blog/2017/02/28/how-m ... terval-01/. Potentially millions.

[dewdman42]

I don't know what the exact precision is, but definitely plugin parameters have a higher precision potential then MIDI, by a very long shot..

[Killahurts]

I'm mainly composing in Pro Tools nowadays, solely because of MIDI and instrument track workflow (it was also because of incomplete control surface support, but MOTU fixed that with DP11, good on you MOTU!).

In Pro Tools, just like DP, you can have as many MIDI tracks as you like assigned to an instrument. You don't have to use the "built-in" MIDI track at all if you don't want to.. but it is there if you need it and wish to work that way. And unlike Logic, it's easy to set up multiple MIDI tracks.

Pro Tools also has a very simple feature that caused me to make the switch. It's called "Freeze up to this insert." You select the virtual instrument insert in a track, and right click, to get this. It bounces your instrument and MIDI to audio, but only to the point of the instrument, so if you have other inserts following, like EQ/compression, or the fader, etc. those do not get bounced and continue to be tweakable. You've simply traded MIDI for audio, without committing anything else. This is brilliant, and I so wish DP had something like it. It would bring me back. As it is now, it takes several steps and lots of preparation to do this in DP. It's a kludge, and I usually just skip rendering audio in a project, because there's never time.

In DP, I don't use V-Racks, except to import instrument or FX sets, where they are immediately converted to tracks. I always mix with audio, not MIDI, and I don't have a use for static only audio tracks. Before DP11, V-Rack tracks didn't even show up on my console/controller, so I got use to life without them anyway.

But I also hate being forced to have a MIDI track with a separate instrument track. If the two are placed together, I have two faders on the console for each track, one of which is correct, and one that screws things up. If I put the instrument track by itself or hide the MIDI track, I can't see if there is anything in the track to play.

If DP had the ability to integrate MIDI into a VI like other DAWs, that would make it better for my work. What would make it superior to the others, is if you could freely record and move multiple MIDI tracks inside of, and even in and out of, a virtual instrument track.. like a super folder.

Pro Tools is kind of an old dog, but it's really the only other DAW I can work with, besides DP. I have Logic, but I don't understand that software.. it's like power-washing the entire parking lot, one square foot at a time.

I really hope MOTU improves the virtual instrument workflow in DP before next May, so I don't have to pay another Avid subscription.

[Michael Canavan]

Pro Tools also has a very simple feature that caused me to make the switch. It's called "Freeze up to this insert." You select the virtual instrument insert in a track, and right click, to get this. It bounces your instrument and MIDI to audio, but only to the point of the instrument, so if you have other inserts following, like EQ/compression, or the fader, etc. those do not get bounced and continue to be tweakable. You've simply traded MIDI for audio, without committing anything else. This is brilliant, and I so wish DP had something like it. It would bring me back. As it is now, it takes several steps and lots of preparation to do this in DP. It's a kludge, and I usually just skip rendering audio in a project, because there's never time.

I don't know when the last time you used DP was, but DP has had the ability to bounce separate tracks as audio files all in one go for a while now.

Sounds like Pro Tools has good take on it, but you would have to set that up for every track right? so it's not going to be that much faster than muting FX you don't want rendered to the track.

[syntonica]

Pro Tools also has a very simple feature that caused me to make the switch. It's called "Freeze up to this insert." You select the virtual instrument insert in a track, and right click, to get this. It bounces your instrument and MIDI to audio, but only to the point of the instrument, so if you have other inserts following, like EQ/compression, or the fader, etc. those do not get bounced and continue to be tweakable. You've simply traded MIDI for audio, without committing anything else. This is brilliant, and I so wish DP had something like it. It would bring me back. As it is now, it takes several steps and lots of preparation to do this in DP. It's a kludge, and I usually just skip rendering audio in a project, because there's never time.

I don't know when the last time you used DP was, but DP has had the ability to bounce separate tracks as audio files all in one go for a while now.

Sounds like Pro Tools has good take on it, but you would have to set that up for every track right? so it's not going to be that much faster than muting FX you don't want rendered to the track.

Muting inserts that you don't want frozen is a very tedious and inelegant solution. But it's how I've had to do it as long as I've been using DAWs. Dealing with the resultant audio can also be quite a pain, depending on how MIDI and audio tracks coexist. And when freezing, most often you want to do a track at a time if you are just trying to get back some amount of CPU power. It's only at the mixing stage that you might want to render all of your tracks at once. Then, you have the dread task of unmuting all those plugins or duplicating them to another track.

Tracktion/Waveform has had this ability as well, for some time. You just drop a Freeze token into your effect chain where you want it and the task is done--it just renders the audio chain up to that point. If you decide to move the token, it will rerender. The track essentially becomes an audio track rather than a MIDI track and there's no faffing about with extra tracks, audio clips, muting/unmuting, duplicating FX chains, etc. It's the best Freeze implementation that I have seen in any DAW.