DP's way of handling Instrument tracks and MIDI

[Killahurts]

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.

I think it is faster for me.

In DP I have to:

Locate the MIDI and virtual instrument tracks, and make sure they are vertically aligned, because both have to be selected for the freeze/bounce. Go to the instrument track and turn off the unwanted plugins, find where the fader is, e.g. -4.61 dB, and mark it down with a pencil, or take a screenshot. Control click the fader to put it at unity. Execute the freeze/bounce. Go to the newly created track and bring it under the MIDI/inst tracks and select them all. Go to the mixer window and copy the plugins to the new track, and activate them. Go to the new track's fader and put it at the value I marked down before, and then turn of the MIDI/inst tracks if the freeze/bounce didn't do it automatically.

In Pro Tools I have to:

Right click the instrument insert and select Freeze up to this insert.

[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.

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.

You're going to have to determine per track where the freeze would happen though right? Plus I'm not talking about freezing. Bounce to disk has had the ability to bounce all at once to separate tracks offline since v10. To me that's the most elegant solution, make another Sequence Chunk and work with audio tracks only for the mix down. Freezing was always bad in DP, for sure. Real time and not too smart.

[syntonica]

You're going to have to determine per track where the freeze would happen though right? Plus I'm not talking about freezing. Bounce to disk has had the ability to bounce all at once to separate tracks offline since v10. To me that's the most elegant solution, make another Sequence Chunk and work with audio tracks only for the mix down. Freezing was always bad in DP, for sure. Real time and not too smart.

Bounce to Disk and Freezing are really just two ways of going about the same thing--getting an audio file from a track.

Freezing creates it behind the scenes on a per track basis and should allow for a simple way to unfreeze if you need to go back and make changes to the plugins. No extra audio tracks or muting should be required. I agree that very few DAWs get it right.

Bounce to Disk is a batch process that does the same, but leaves you with a bundle of audio files with no home, really. You still have to put them on new audio tracks, copy over any plugins with settings that were not frozen, mute the MIDI tracks, etc. It's great that you don't have to freeze your tracks one at a time, especially if you are running dozens and dozens of orchestral tracks that only need to be plunked down with a reverb send and a channel strip, but not so great for somebody like me who likes to sculpt my sound in situ with multiple plugins per track and I only want to freeze the VI to audio, but still keep the effect plugins live for tweaking. But I rarely have over, say, 20 tracks. This way, I end up with plenty of CPU headroom and I can go to town with the automation, channel steps, and quality plugins per track rather than have to shove everybody onto the same bus with a cheap reverb. (Yes, I often use separate reverbs... )

As for real-time vs offline, offline is indeed much nicer, but not all plugins can render offline. They all should, these days, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ what can you do? I've always done real time so I can focus on truly listening to what I'm printing to disk. Also, I tend to only do like short phrases (with pickups and tails) that get cloned, so it's not very time consuming at all for me.

[dbikel]

I may have missed it in this long discussion, but one thing that having a combined instrument/MIDI track would be great for would be building orchestral templates, where play-enabling a track not only play-enables its MIDI but also loads and enables its VI. This video illustrates this approach to building a non-VEP template in Cubase:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4Qhh_0DNaI

As it stands now, you could make sure you always group any instrument track with its MIDI track(s), but it's certainly not quite as easy enabling or disabling a single, combined track using a single keystroke.

[stubbsonic]

As it stands now, you could make sure you always group any instrument track with its MIDI track(s), but it's certainly not quite as easy enabling or disabling a single, combined track using a single keystroke.

More simplicity and ease, less flexibility & power.

I suppose a good compromise would be to have some little function that easily links them in the way you describe, but allows us to keep them separate if we prefer (preferably by default).

[dewdman42]

There are pros and cons both ways. I think MOTU would just irritate less people if they provided this, but there may be more to it. Me personally I tend to use separated tracks anyway, because I tend to put my instruments into a V-Rack.... So I end up with MIDI tracks anyway.... Cubase provides both approaches, you can have a MIDI track that points to a rack instrument, or you can have an instrument be directly in the instrument track.

On the other hand, I also find it slightly annoying every single time when I'm just doing something small, I just want to load up an instrument on a track quickly and start playing it...right now the quickest way is to use the menu option to load an instrument with options and you go through that dialog...and it creates two linked tracks for you...which is also fine...though at least at first kind of annoying that I have two tracks created, one of which is the MIDI track and the other of which is the instrument track... In that simple scenario it seems cumbersome...Would prefer one track that is both. As can be the case with other DAW's. its particularly annoying if and when I want to automate plugin parameters of the instrument...in that case I have the MIDI track, with MIDI notes and MIDI automation in one place...and the instrument track, with the plugin and plugin automation in a different place. I find that annoying. A simple instrument track concept like LogicPro, Cubase and many other DAW's is much easier for that scenario

But...its also true that in real projects of any significant size...I end up putting my instruments into V-racks anyway...sometimes even into VePro...and then at that point I can appreciate the simplicity that my sequence chunks are almost exclusively MIDI tracks.

But oh wait....if I want to automate the actual audio from the instrument...and/or god forbid automate plugin parameters...that actually can't be done in the V-Rack...and even without a V-Rack...that has to be on the other instrument track...so its two different places....for what is conceptually one instrument.

What I would like... one track that can be either just a MIDI track or it can be a MIDI-inst track..where the MIDI is right there on the same track as the instrument...and if the instrument plugin is hosted in a V-Rack..that is fine, I want the one and only one sequence track have both MIDI as well as audio and plugin automation lanes...right there on that track... Don't tell me this isn't possible, its totally possible. One track per conceptual instrument is what I want...and if there is something hosted in a V-Rack, I don't call it a track I call it a "channel" because there is no time-based info there anyway.

I want all time based info for a conceptual instrument in ONE TRACK.

[monkey man]

As I've said for many years, the only way for MOTU to keep everyone happy on this is to provide both options. Ideally IMHO, a track should be able to be toggled, collapsing into one on one hand and spawning previously-associated MIDI tracks on the other.

So, if you happened to start out with 5 MIDI tracks, perhaps for convenience of editing, pointing to a single instrument, toggling the collapsed VI track back would reinstate those tracks.

I can't see how anyone would complain about an arrangement like this.

[Killahurts]

As I've said for many years, the only way for MOTU to keep everyone happy on this is to provide both options.

Agreed! Here's an idea- the super-instrument..

It could work like this: With the feature disabled, everything continues to operate as it always has. Nothing has changed. You still have separate MIDI tracks, and when you select and open an instrument track, the instrument insert comes up, as usual.

With the feature enabled, when you select and open an instrument track, you are essentially opening a special folder that contains MIDI tracks, either one or many (unlimited). You could select which MIDI track is displayed in the instrument track when it is not open (in the TO for instance), or have it show a composite of all MIDI tracks in the instrument. You would be able to freely move MIDI tracks in and out of the super-instrument, they would still play, just as you expect. You could also drag other MIDI tracks in, and even have them automatically reassign to the instrument. Importantly, the super-instrument would be considered as one instrument track in any control surface, so that mixing on one of those is all tidy, with only audio producing tracks on the faders, like other DAWs.

How to pull up the VI itself? There is a command in DP (not set by default) called "open instrument", to pull up a VI when selecting either the track or a MIDI track that drives it. I set mine to F15. Also, for those who use the channel strip like I do, you can open the insert from there in the usual way.

When it comes time to bounce, freeze or otherwise render MIDI into audio, simply selecting all or part of the super-instrument track is enough, you don't have to go chasing after your MIDI tracks. Even if the MIDI tracks are not in the super-instrument, they will still render, if those tracks are play enabled. Unlike other DAWs, the instrument would not turn itself into the bounced audio track, that would be created as a separate track, as it is now. It would be nice to have an option during bounce/freeze, to bypass the mixing desk.. sort of like a "merge virtual instruments." This way, you could have your track effects and volume/pan remain a work-in-progress. I never wait until the end to start mixing. What would really be slick, is if it copied the effects over to the new track and disabled the old ones!

You may have noticed that this idea doesn't fundamentally change the way DP works with MIDI/VIs at all, it just offers a special type of consolidation and organization for instrument tracks, so they can be treated more easily as one track. In many ways, the folder functionality in DP is almost there already. Studios that use control surfaces with DP will more readily appreciate a concept like this, as will those who prefer not to work with V-Racks and VEP. V-Racks are limited in ways that make it inefficient for the way I work, and VE Pro is a second piece of software, plain and simple. Don't get me wrong, I love and use both of those, but neither is a one-stop solution for an instrument track.. multiple steps and work-arounds abound. I want DP to do it ALL, in one package.

[dewdman42]

Why not just allow MIDI regions to exist directly in instrument tracks?

[Michael Canavan]

Why not just allow MIDI regions to exist directly in instrument tracks?

The question becomes which MIDI region? I like Killahurts idea, but I get that simply copying say Ableton Lives method also works, but Live has a more flexible routing system than DP, and I would bet a riot would happen if DP did what Logic does for multi instruments, despite some of the advantages of Logics method. (less tracks than Live for multi MIDI and audio out from a software instrument etc.)

Personally I would rather there be a hybrid MIDI/parameter automation track that talks to V-Racks. Let all plug ins exist in a V-Rack with super lite Sequence Chunks. Take that with Killahurts more useful folder idea for single instance instruments in a project I suppose, but if everything useful about an instrument is already in the MIDI/automation track, then what's the point?

I think at this point it's entirely possible that MOTU do something about the situation though. It is definitely the main reason people get confused or annoyed at DP coming from other DAWs, since as far as I know DP is the only DAW left that doesn't host MIDI in it's instrument tracks.

[dewdman42]

what do you mean "which MIDI region" The same MIDI regions you would normally put on a MIDI track. That is a silly question

Just put the MIDI regions on the instrument track directly. THERE IS NO NEED FOR TWO SEPERATE TRACKS.

but if you want two seperate tracks because you just can't mentally grasp the concept, then fine...DP can obviously still support that.

don't make a mountain out of a mole hill...it doesn't have to be that difficult. There is no reason that DP instrument tracks couldn't be updated to accommodate MIDI input data and storing the MIDI regions directly on the instrument track itself..there is no need for seperate tracks....this is old school thinking that MOTU can't seem to seperate from.... I like a lot of things about DP, but this is an area where nearly every other DAW has figured it out, but MOTU has not.

[dewdman42]

Regarding the question of V-Racks... again..look to Cubase for an example...they have a rack concept also, that hosts instruments. A source track in Cubase can either send the MIDI directly to its own hosted instrument (its an instrument track), or it can send the MIDI to an instrument hosted in the rack. Same concept as using V-Racks... Don't make it more complicated then it needs to be. A sequence instrument track should always function as an instrument track...and that's it (unless you're sending the MIDI to an actual hardware instrument..then again look at other DAW's they simply provide an external instrument plugin for that case. so its basically always the same...and instrument track is an instrument track regardless of whether the instrument is hosted right there in the sequence track, or hosted in a remote V-Rack...or outside in a hardware synth....

Likewise, automation for that instrument would always be in the instrument track...both for MIDI automation...and also for instrument and FX plugin automation.. If the instrument or FX plugins are being hosted over on a V-Rack..then that is where DP would use also some further refinement, which is that it needs a way to have plugin and Fader control automation of a V-Rack automatable from the sequence instrument track that is directed at it...All bloody well possible. The end user would simply see all relevant plugin parameters displayed on the sequence instrument track where they could setup automation lanes to their hearts content just as if the plugin was hosted directly in the sequence instrument track.

KISS

It doesn't need to be that complicated. From the end user perspective, we simply want to use instrument tracks..and sometimes we want to host instruments on a V-Rack for obvious reasons...but still we sequence it out in the sequence..which is where any and all automation has to come from anyway. I personally want to see MIDI and plugin automation on ONE TRACK!!!!!!!

[stubbsonic]

what do you mean "which MIDI region" The same MIDI regions you would normally put on a MIDI track. That is a silly question

Just put the MIDI regions on the instrument track directly. THERE IS NO NEED FOR TWO SEPERATE TRACKS.

but if you want two seperate tracks because you just can't mentally grasp the concept, then fine...DP can obviously still support that.

don't make a mountain out of a mole hill...it doesn't have to be that difficult. There is no reason that DP instrument tracks couldn't be updated to accommodate MIDI input data and storing the MIDI regions directly on the instrument track itself..there is no need for seperate tracks....this is old school thinking that MOTU can't seem to seperate from.... I like a lot of things about DP, but this is an area where nearly every other DAW has figured out it, but MOTU has not.

Perhaps you can make your case without accusing people who think/work differently than you as "silly" or hysterical.

A very strong case has been made for keeping them separate, or at least preserving the option.

[James Steele]

you don't like my opinion, too bad for you.

Wow. You told him, huh? As admin can I ask that we just ease back on this a bit?

I actually like having separate tracks. It’s vastly more flexible. Perhaps make it so you can do it both ways? Even ProTools let’s you have both options.

[HCMarkus]

DP provides lots of ways to do many, many things. I suspect that, at some point, a "single track" option for MIDI/VI could be included. But sometimes, like more than a few, I like "old school thinking". It's familiar. It's comfortable.

Just sayin'.

For example, I often use MIDI volume automation to enhance dynamics in individual string parts served by a single instantiation of Kontakt. Then I'll automate overall string section dynamics on the VI track using the VI channel fader. Of course there are ways to accommodate this in the single track approach using lanes, but DP's split approach works really well for me in a hands-on, organic way.

I don't think anyone here is arguing against an option in DP that allows users an approach they feel best suits their workflow, or arguing for removal of the current approach. So let's not get testy about it.

PS: James beat me to it. One awesome mod.