How does one punch on on controller#1 automation?

[mhurwitz]

FWIW this happens in Cubase too. I think it's a general behavior of MIDI.

[Steve Steele]

YES!!!

Page 214 - input filter. You can set this up to record only the controller number(s) you want. Hope this helps you guys out!

Chris

Good find Chris. I thought there was a way too because I've done this before.

Thanks for making the effort to find this!

[FMiguelez]

you are correct that in overdub mode, dp will just ride along not adding anything. But what I need to have happen is that when I touch CC1 it OVERWRITES and CC 1 that was there before. Otherwise, you get doubled CC1 data, which becomes a mess.

And has been one of my MAJOR complaints for the past months...

You wouldn't have this problem if the automation LATCH MODES worked as they are supposed to... Heck, they don't even work with volume (MIDI)

YES!!!

Page 214 - input filter. You can set this up to record only the controller number(s) you want. Hope this helps you guys out!

But how does this help exactly with the OP's problem?

I mean, the Input Filter is pretty obvious for what it does, but I don't see how it relates to this thread...

I mean, Overwrite is designed to, well, overwrite stuff, so using it along with the Input Filter defeats its purpose. THAT's what the other mixer modes are for, but they simply don't work.

And don't get me started with the lack of CC automation consistency...


I just think it's too bad MOTU is quite busy with the Windoze version. Worst, they will keep VERY busy with it in the future. That means less resources devoted to fixing such basic and urgently needed things

This is getting to me. I'm starting to feel resentful about all this CC business.
And now I sound like I'm complaining about a girlfriend or something with my psycho-bable...


Oh, and yes. In case it isn't obvious, I've been having a pretty $hitty day too.

[toodamnhip]

I can see using the input filter helping if one wanted to do a specific type of destructive controller over write. Set input filter to CC 1 and time punch where you dont like the previous CC automation.
But the reality of this is that often SOME of the CC data IS fine and a user just wants to tweek or alter it. So going destructive is over kill, and using over dub mode won;t work either because you end up with doubled CC 1 data.

I agree with the previous poster who hopes that MOTU understands this is a new day and age and therefore improves there MIDI to handle controller data in a way more in keeping with CC 7 automation. It IS what is needed nowadays.
Motu has not altered it’s MIDI in ages. How long has it been anyway? 10 yrs?

[FMiguelez]

By the way, sorry about calling you "the OP", TDH.

I forgot it was you who initiated this thread, Bro

And yes. It's been at least 9-10 years that no significant changes have been implemented MIDI-wise.

[crduval]

TDH, I think I got hung up with this post:

you are correct that in overdub mode, dp will just ride along not adding anything. But what I need to have happen is that when I touch CC1 it OVERWRITES and CC 1 that was there before. Otherwise, you get doubled CC1 data, which becomes a mess.

So I thought you might not be aware that you could just re record CC data in a given track without losing anything else using the input filter. But it sounds like what you really want is an intuitive way to nudge your first-pass CC data without having to completely re-create it.

Any alternative I can think of would be a little cumbersome - for example I was thinking you could thin the data points of areas that you wanted to edit heavily so that only a very rough envelope of your first pass remained; then your overdub pass might not be so confusing. Having typed that, I am now wondering if you could comp a CC pass using multiple takes of just new CC data; you'd need a separate track for that I suppose...

Guess I'm out of ideas!

[Steve Steele]

you are correct that in overdub mode, dp will just ride along not adding anything. But what I need to have happen is that when I touch CC1 it OVERWRITES and CC 1 that was there before. Otherwise, you get doubled CC1 data, which becomes a mess.

And has been one of my MAJOR complaints for the past months...

You wouldn't have this problem if the automation LATCH MODES worked as they are supposed to... Heck, they don't even work with volume (MIDI)

YES!!!

Page 214 - input filter. You can set this up to record only the controller number(s) you want. Hope this helps you guys out!

But how does this help exactly with the OP's problem?

I mean, the Input Filter is pretty obvious for what it does, but I don't see how it relates to this thread...

I mean, Overwrite is designed to, well, overwrite stuff, so using it along with the Input Filter defeats its purpose. THAT's what the other mixer modes are for, but they simply don't work.

And don't get me started with the lack of CC automation consistency...


I just think it's too bad MOTU is quite busy with the Windoze version. Worst, they will keep VERY busy with it in the future. That means less resources devoted to fixing such basic and urgently needed things

This is getting to me. I'm starting to feel resentful about all this CC business.
And now I sound like I'm complaining about a girlfriend or something with my psycho-bable...


Oh, and yes. In case it isn't obvious, I've been having a pretty $hitty day too.

Yeah. I agree. I quit using DP for MIDI for several years (I was only tracking audio) until I got back into orchestral composing. And it does seem like nothing has changed since version 2. That's exactly how it seems. When I started using MIDI again a couple of years ago I was surprised that there had been little change - I think some automation and MIDI effects is about it, right?

I'm also surprised that with the surge in sample library sales, and that DP is supposed to be the "film scorers" DAW, that MOTU would stay ahead of this, but from what others are telling me, Cubase is taking MIDI very seriously. I downloaded a demo of Cubase but have not tried it yet. But I have started working with Logic when I need to go into 64-bit mood.

I'm also a little pissed about the DP going Windows. MOTU claimed that Mountain Lion held up DP's release. My conspiracy theory is that they're over their heads with the Windows port.

After this current project I'm working on, I'm going to reevaluate my workflow from scratch. I stayed with MOTU all these years because initially I made a choice to go with their hardware.

All I can say is that DP 8 better be good. Just looking at the demo though, it just looks like a 64-bit update, and I'm not sure that's good enough.

Sorry to hijack. I've been pissy about MOTU all year.

[toodamnhip]

And the way DP has been a 10 pound weakling when it comes to handling 3rd party VI’s is also hard to believe given the new crop of VIs and the VI needs for film scorers.

This must be a concern to MOTU. They cannot stay competitive if they don;t work well with current realities such as heavy VIs and CC needs.

I would add this. I have been working in Pro Tools again and it is so obvious that Pro Tools is just more solid.
You make an edit, it feels more solid. No glitching, no pauses No spinning beach ball BS.

I really wish I DP wasn;t such 2nd nature to me because honestly, if I was as proficient at Pro Tools as I used to be, I’d leave DP in a heart beat.
But I am so used to DP and so fast at it, I stay.

But if DP 8 isn;t smoking good and I keep having Pro Tools projects come to my studio, there will come a time where I have gotten my pro tools cob webs out and feel fast enough at it to move on. And if DP doesn;t handle VIs well, doesnt provide new MIDI features etc, at that point it will be good bye.
I really hope DP 8 gets it’s friggin coding together so that it has no spinning beach parties, works with VIs well, reports latency correctly etc...!
I am not a programmer, but word around here seems to point to legacy coding from way back when.

Maybe that’s why the update is taking a long time. They are pulling all the remnants of old code?

After efficiency, Secondary importance to me would be to update it’s MIDI like we’ve discussed herein.

[NazRat]

I haven't used it, but wouldn't DP's Console feature handle this? The example they give in the DP manual specifically mentions this type of mod wheel/volume scenario.

[Steve Steele]

And the way DP has been a 10 pound weakling when it comes to handling 3rd party VI’s is also hard to believe given the new crop of VIs and the VI needs for film scorers.

You said it. I've complained more than anyone how DP slows down, beach balls and can't handle going over 3GBs. Not blaming it all on DP (just most of it). I don't know much about Kontakt's programing (although developers tell me it's the best from that stand point), but 5 - 10 crashes a day when using Kontakt is so 1995 - System 7. No good. My friend's PT's rig on the same Macpro as mine is rockin'. I'll let you guys know how the Cubase demo feels compared to DP. Logic in 64-bit is great. But Logic 9 still has some problems.

MOTU did mention 100% Cocoa code for DP8. That's very good news.

I do appreciate MOTU allowing newer versions of DP to run on old Macs. That's a very old school Apple-like friendliness. But, I think now is a good time for MOTU to make DP the best program it can, both code and feature wise.

But still, DP is a great program in it's overall design. If DP fails to take off on Windows, and with Mac DP sales being taken away by Logic over the last couple of years, I wonder what could happen.

Anyway, here's to DP8 being a killer!

[Steve Steele]

I haven't used it, but wouldn't DP's Console feature handle this? The example they give in the DP manual specifically mentions this type of mod wheel/volume scenario.

I don't know but I was just looking at Consoles today. It's kind of like Logic's Environments sort of, I think. When i have time, when DP8 comes out, I'm going to make the effort to go completely through the manual, and learn everything i can.

[Shooshie]

Guys, you're surprising me. Whatever made you think that CC data should be "automation?" Here in this thread and here in this other one, you're confusing some basic principles of MIDI with some features of sequencers. CC's can be learned by assignment to the controls of various plugins or VI's. That's how they are used. Always has been.

What you are asking for is not the ability to use CC's as automation -- where they would work the way automation control points work, each in its own layer -- but to actually assign automation to VI's. Many plugins and VI's are actually automatable. I automate Waves plugins all the time. That means Waves has added automation to their plugins, and that you can utilize that automation through the Automation Setup window, accessed in the automation menu (where it says Touch, Latch, Overwrite, etc.)

Automation takes great care to be sure you don't accidentally add things you don't want. When automation is in record mode, every touch you make on a plugin during playback usually changes something and gets recorded as automation. One has to be careful when using it.

But matching CC's to controls on VI's, say, in the V-Racks where automation does not reach, is a very effective way to control them from MIDI tracks. Thus we have "MIDI Learn." It's a quick way of assigning CC's to controls. This is not automation, but it's a good substitute. You say there aren't tools for changing these easily? The DP MIDI editing tools are absolutely amazing. Look at all you can do with the Reshape tool. First, select the CC type you want to alter, and isolate it with the QuickFilter. Then use the Reshape tool to change by percentage, if you like, or to add a certain amount, or subtract a certain amount. These all act on your movements of the Reshape tool, moving it by that amount or that percentage from the 0 line in the panel where the CC's appear.

If you want the fastest way to edit these, make a MIDI track for each of them and put them all in a folder labeled with the name of the VI. But asking MOTU to turn CC's into automation data? That doesn't make sense. Instead, ask them to allow automating VI's in the V-Racks. I think that's what you're asking. Of course, you can keep the VI in the main sequence, not in V-Rack, and you can automate it there if the developer of the VI has made it automatable.

But you've got to clear up the misconception of what you are asking for. Punching in the Mod Wheel (CC#1) is not "automation." You're recording MIDI when you do that. And the fact that you probably already have MIDI information in that track is the best reason to record it into another track. You can either have dedicated tracks for each CC for that instrument, or you can record it into a scratch track and move it to the main MIDI track for that instrument once you're satisfied with your moves. Punch in recording operates the same on all MIDI data, so record your CC's the same as you do your notes.

If you have many types of CC data, an easy way to select all the data of one type is to double click on one. That will select all data of the type you clicked, within that track.

If you want to use the separate MIDI track method, that's very easy to do. Just click on the main MIDI track, then type CONTROL-COMMAND-S, for "add similar track." The blank track will appear right below the one you copied. Then, all you have to do is name it and arm it to record.

I know you think I'm being short-sighted in saying "why?" instead of "why not?" but really I find it troublesome to ask that the very definition and existence of a MIDI data type included in the earliest MIDI spec be changed into something entirely different: automation data. What you are asking for is a way to automate controls on plugins. There already is such a thing, and most plugins that I have do allow that. When you record a Mod Wheel, you're not "automating" it. You're recording it, just as you record your notes from the keyboard. You edit its data in a manner similar to editing notes or any other MIDI data, except that DP has given you excellent tools for editing continuous data. If you're not clear on that, see the entry about it on page 2 of the Tips Sheet.

Again, that's MIDI data, not automation. You don't want MIDI data to operate the way automation data does. Just use automation data instead. If the VI doesn't allow for automation, then talk to the people who wrote it. They should add it.

Shooshie

[Shooshie]

Yeah. I agree. I quit using DP for MIDI for several years (I was only tracking audio) until I got back into orchestral composing. And it does seem like nothing has changed since version 2. That's exactly how it seems. When I started using MIDI again a couple of years ago I was surprised that there had been little change - I think some automation and MIDI effects is about it, right?

Man, you've just admitted that you have not learned anything about DP since version 2. Have you actually USED every tool in the toolbar? Do you know the different modes of editing with the Reshape Tool and Pencil Tool? Here, let me refresh your memory:

First, the toolbar:

Now, the types of lines you can draw with the draw and edit tools:

And now, the edit modes:


I've seen no other DAW that does all that. These tools work on continuous data of any type: MIDI Control Change data (CC), or DP Automation (each in its own layer of a soundbite)

It's important to know that the fader of a MIDI track is actually sending CC#7 to that track. Volume control, then, is what most VI's respond to for… well… Volume. You've probably noticed that MIDI Volume data doesn't edit the same way as Audio Volume data. Audio volume has its own layer, and the control points connect to each other with ramps. MIDI CC's do not connect that way. DP does you a favor, though, and if you take two CC control points that are right next to each other and drag one away, DP will add a ramp of points between them if you are in Line Mode (CC display mode, located in bottom left corner of the MIDI Graphic Edit Window).

Seriously, if you think DP hasn't changed much since version 2, you need to read the manual. Much of version 2 is still in there, but it's a fraction of what's there now, and so many features have been improved, it's almost unbelievable.

Please, don't malign DP with statements about its limitations when you haven't the foggiest idea of what those limitations might be. Someone might believe you and give up before they even learn the app.

DP's MIDI edit features are profoundly easy to use, profoundly powerful, and profoundly accurate. I'm not going to sit here and remain silent while you guys chew up and spit out something you apparently don't even know how to use! It's in the manual, it's in the Tips Sheet, and I have written it countless times in threads like this one. It's also in DP Help, under the Help menu. What does it take to get you to read it and actually learn and use it? I used to think DP was advanced back in version 2. That was the years 1999 through 2001. Then DP3 came out with the first versions of the current tools, and it blew my mind. Now we have better versions of all our tools. For example, the role, slip, slide, and other audio tools are tremendously helpful. It's so nice to be able to grab one soundbite edge and actually move both it and the one next to it, so that you're changing the edit point on both soundbites at the same time. Or just slide the soundbite in the background without changing where its edges are. Learn these features, and you will feel empowered. Do you know about take-comping in the Sequence Editor? How about Pitch editing?

I often automate individual controls in plugins. Waves plugins are completely automatable that way. Some VI's are completely controllable through CC data, such as Wallander's WIVI. Every control in WIVI has MIDI Learn, for easily adding a pedal or fader from your desk to operate that control. That data is MIDI data, and is editable using the tools I've shown you above.

Sorry, but I'm not understanding the problem. I think I create and edit this stuff faster than I can do the same with true automation, but if you think there should be a faster way, then design it and show it to us. I think we have the best of worlds, right now. I've used Logic and spent months learning these same features in Logic. Let me tell you; they do not compare to DP's. Not even a little bit. DP kicks Logic's ass in this department.

Please, guys. I'm asking you to read the manual, take a day off and learn the MIDI drawing and editing features. ALL of them, not just the one you use all the time. Learn how to use percentages, for example. You have to know where the Zero Point is; it's not shown on the screen. You can learn landmarks, though, which quickly identify where you are. Percentage is a subtle thing. Maybe you just want to add by the amount you change the Reshape tool. Straight addition isn't subtle at all.

Then how about learning to use the curves to create vibrato? I can generate an entire phrase of vibrato in about 3 seconds, including the curve type, the skewing of the curve, the amplitude, the initial zero crossing, and the speed of the vibrato. And get this… see all those parts of the vibrato I just mentioned? I create them all -- all together at the same instant -- in one big motion of the cursor, using modification keys as I go. It's instant. (and its in the Tips Sheet post) NO OTHER DAW DOES THAT! (at least none that I've seen or heard of)

Geez, please read the manual, the tips sheet, and the online help. If you still don't understand, then ask us here in the forum. I'll answer if you ask. But you've got to know the difference between MIDI control and automation, and why they work differently, edit differently, and ARE different.

Thanks...
Shooshie

[Shooshie]

Any alternative I can think of would be a little cumbersome - for example I was thinking you could thin the data points of areas that you wanted to edit heavily so that only a very rough envelope of your first pass remained; then your overdub pass might not be so confusing. Having typed that, I am now wondering if you could comp a CC pass using multiple takes of just new CC data; you'd need a separate track for that I suppose...

Guess I'm out of ideas!

The separate track idea is actually a good one. I've used that for decades. When recording MIDI, I keep a scratch track handy (sometimes several), and I record into the scratch track so as to avoid losing data already in the track I'm adding to. Once I'm satisfied with the recording, I drag that new region into the destination track. The Tracks Overview Window is great for this. When you drag one track to another, it merges the data. There are fast ways of removing particular data first, if you prefer. One method is to double-click the data you want to remove. All types of that data will appear highlighted. You can adjust the length of the selection if you don't want to remove it all; just use the F5 and F6 keys to set the limits of the selection.

Another method of adding data is the Overdub recording mode. It's ok, but you've got to be sure you don't need to edit it, or that you can easily select it to edit it. I find the scratch track easier to use. CONTROL-COMMAND-S creates a similar track with the same I/O and track color.

Shooshie

[FMiguelez]

Guys, you're surprising me. Whatever made you think that CC data should be "automation?" Here in this thread and here in this other one, you're confusing some basic principles of MIDI with some features of sequencers. CC's can be learned by assignment to the controls of various plugins or VI's.

With all due respect, I don't think that's the point at all, Shoosh.

It doesn't matter if CC data is (or should be) automation or not. What we need is a way to manipulate CCs in a useful, logical and workflow-friendly manner. It doesn't matter what it's called, what it is or what it has been.

The fact is that MOTU must make them work, even if that means "patching" the MIDI protocol tradition or coming up with a totally new scheme.

We NEED a better way to dealing with CCs.

That's how they are used. Always has been.

And that's exactly the problem, right there.
That way simply does not work anymore. Times have changed. Technology has changed.
Modern VIs simply DEMAND a better solution, even if massive changes need to be made.

This thread actually proves my point. If you read all the suggestions to deal with this, one simply smiles and realizes all those are nothing more than WORK-AROUNDS for something that could be so much simpler.
Let's face it. All that is grasping to straws!

It's like trying to win World War II with a great cavalry against machine guns.

I have not read a suggestion that even eases this workflow problem. DP is quite flexible, so we can always find ways to do what we want. But do we really need to jump through all those hoops to do something so simple?

Don't you think MOTU should adjust to current technology and workflow demands?