Has DP, THE MIDI king, been slayed? Saw its head rolling...

[stubbsonic]

DP is an incredibly complex program, with intense audio, MIDI, and graphics demands.

Over the years there have been several updates that have been described as "re-written from the ground up"-- though I can't recall which ones. We've seen updates that bring welcome new features, and we've seen updates that have broken things that have never been fixed, since.

I sometimes wonder if there are developers on MOTU's team who have a complete grasp of the totality of the program, or do they all just work on sub-systems (?). Furthermore, I wonder if people on the development team would (off-the-record, perhaps) admit that there are aspects of the software that are unsolvable puzzles-- i.e., we can't fix A without breaking B, for example.

MOTU obviously has to prioritize their resources. Tasks can be organized into categories (in no particular order) 1. new features, 2. GUI enhancements, 3. bug fixes, 4. workflow improvements, 5. compatibility, 6. CPU efficiency. Who can guess how many hours/$ there are in each of those categories to bring DP up to level that for the most part satisfies newcomers, casual users, and power-users.

DP is a technological marvel, but as with all software, it is a work in progress. With the DAW often being the absolute command-center of a composer's creative environment, we are justifiably fussy. And when stuff is not working right-- particularly things that either used to work right, or should work right-- frustration levels are directly proportional to the frequency of the task involved.

Most folks on this forum (including myself) can easily be described as loyal. The work of which I am most proud, could not have been made without DP. I'm impressed that some users who are very demanding in their work, are mostly very satisfied with DP. That says something.

[HCMarkus]

DP does everything I need it to do; my music is a reflection of my creativity and if DP constrains that creativity, I am unaware of it. Been using it since Performer 1.3 and I don't want to explore other options because I don't feel like taking the time away from working and creating to learn how to effectively use another DAW. I'm old. (Well, at least old-ish.) Call me set in my ways.

The customers MOTU really needs to worry about are the ones it doesn't yet have, you know, those just getting started (like I was when I owned and used the original Macintosh). Unlike today's me, these potential customers aren't wedded to any DAW. Their minds are supple, they are ready to learn and, over the next few years, they will be making choices that will determine which tools they will use, quite possibly for the rest of their lives.

I'm hoping that the constructive criticism voiced here helps MOTU to keep DP viable in the minds of these young musicians, composers, producers and engineers who will be tomorrow's craftsmen and superstars.

I'll gladly benefit from the improvements, too!

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Well now that the thread has landed in the o/t section...

(putting on my composer hat - brb)

I'd just like to add that DP, like many other programs, are complex beasts. And believe it or not, the people who program and decide on content are... well, people. As such, they have developed methods and "tastes" for different working methods, graphics, and interfaces for their creations, presumably based on their experience and thoughtfulness.

While understanding that there are certain procedures one might perform that could impact the already entered data in a particular program (MIDI in this instance), they are, in fact "certain procedures" that others don't require.

Prior to DP, I used Studio Vision Pro. Before that, it was EditTrack/SMPTETrack on an Atari. As my company name implies, I've have done a lot of MIDI editing since 1988. Quite frankly, even those earlier programs were never problematic in terms of accomplishing my musical goals reasonably quickly.

For me, it boils down to this: how efficiently can I work with the tools at hand given their limitations. That is not to say that FM's issues are very real for him and I applaud his taking the time and effort to document what he sees as possible improvements. At the same time, I think back to well over 20 years of working with complex MIDI and audio and cannot think of anything related to DP that has stopped or significantly slowed my work.

As an aside, let's look at Finale. They recently removed the movie window from the app. THAT is a deal breaker for me and I am done with the program as far as further updates. People have complained for years (decades, even) about how convoluted Finale is. Since 1996 and up to version F2014.5, Finale has been second nature to me. The programmers thought about music the way I did and, as such, I understood the app almost immediately - basically mastering the basics in about 3 days.

Not so with DP! I hated it at first. The thing that bothered me the most was that I had to click on a soundbite icon in the SB window to add extant audio to a track. A minor thing, but it bothered me and I fought against using DP. I also saw the writing on the wall at Opcode and OMS and realized that DP was the only option for the most important thing for me as a theater and film composer: the ability to have multiple sequences in a single project. Again, deal breaker if that's gone. Even before I adopted DP (performer at first) I bought the app and updated it until I was ready for it.

BTW, which of the other apps (living or living dead) do multiple sequences in a single project? Do any of them do that?

Of course, as HCMarkus cites: improvements and new features are welcome - as long as they don't negatively impact existing features. I would LOVE to see the NOTATION and QUICKSCRIBE aspects improved (many don't even realize what the Notation window is - or what it does).

So yes, we each have our own methods and process in creating and editing in DP. Speaking as a composer, I can say that I plan my music in great detail before committing it to paper or to a MIDI file. As a result, I do very little editing in the execution and production process. That's the way the composers I respect work/have worked - going back 100s of years. Given that paradigm, DP's capabilities are overkill, at least for me. When I do need to massage the work in fine detail, DP does that without a hiccup.

YMMV

[James Steele]

This has sort of devolved into a gripe session and so I'm going to move it to the OT section (which includes "Gripes") where the less focused discussion belongs. It started out with a list of specific features, but if so the topic header chosen by the OP really invited the broader discussion we see here.

I think gripe is accurate so yes, it belongs in that section.
One tends to “gripe” after 20 years or so when...

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know... I know...

[toodamnhip]

Most folks on this forum (including myself) can easily be described as loyal.

Very nice post. I am sometimes astounded that certain members here give “complainers” a hard time, not realizing these same complainers love the product and are trying HARD to stick with the product. I have fought with many record companies, many times, to deliver projects in DP when everyone else was working in Pro tools. I have made record companies set up separate studios in various facilities so I could work in DP>, and they were not really happy with the inconvenience. DP needs to keep all the music producers they can who use their DAW. Most music producers don’t use DP. The issue of automation ramping can be a real trouble spot when a major artist is asking for immediate edits, standing right behind me etc, and when chorus 2 won’t sound right until I have to go under the hood and fix tons of screwy automation it looks really bad. Imagine if all the other producers on a record I am on can move choruses around immediately, and the only one who cant is the guy using Digital Performer, me? So I ask for these fixes out of love and out of real world experience, a real world that does not always have time for automation nonsense like this. Especially after decades of a bug or bad designs' existence.
But if I complain, I do so out of a desire to stay with this DAW, as I know it like the back of my...

[waxman]

I have had to buy, learn and become proficient on ProTools, Studio One and Logic when clients demand whatever the latest and greatest or "industry standard" DAW soup of the day happens to be...

All of them have stuff... weird or clunky or crashes. DP 9.51 rarely if ever crashes on me. I'm not sure about GR, or FS... But if I have a problem with DP it is 99.9% of the time something to do with a VI or plug that has gone off the rails.

I challenge you to go use any other DAW for just one week. Most of them have a 30 day trail. Learn it and try to do a complete project. Then let's hear what you think about how cool the soup of the daw is...

Like GJ suggested get hold of Magic Dave or one of the tech guys. They listen and help everytime I need them... I do support and agree that anything you can do to make DP better do it...

[FMiguelez]

I'm hoping that the constructive criticism voiced here helps MOTU to keep DP viable in the minds of these young musicians, composers, producers and engineers who will be tomorrow's craftsmen and superstars.

I'll gladly benefit from the improvements, too!

Thank you, HCMarkus.
I'm so glad you see it all as constructive criticism, because that is exactly what I intended this thread to be (despite my perhaps over-dramatic thread title. James pointed it out, and he's right. In hindsight, I should've chosen a better one).

I challenge you to go use any other DAW for just one week. Most of them have a 30 day trail. Learn it and try to do a complete project. Then let's hear what you think about how cool the soup of the daw is...

One week is not enough to really get to know a deep DAW. One month would be more realistic.

Anyway, like I mentioned upthread, this is precisely what I'm doing now that I incorporated Live 10 into my workflow. I don't intend it to replace DP, but to enhance it, i.e., work there the parts of my workflow where they're problematic in DP, but keep DP as the master for everything else. I'm still learning it. Let's see how it goes...

[FMiguelez]

Waxman and Gravity Jim, you never addressed my points...

I challenge you to go use any other DAW for just one week.

Then, I challenge YOU and Gravity Jim to this:

------ >> Produce a complex 3-minute large orchestral piece using VIs (something like VSL).
--------->> Create the required edits for the promo versions according to the instructions below.

This is to simulate a typical real-life scenario in my or in TDH's professional lives. I'm sure he could provide a million different examples.
So let's pretend and please indulge me... You must REALLY at least try some of this for yourself for this challenge. Otherwise we'll never be on the same page...


----------- Details, so you try this yourself>
To approximate a real orchestra and compete with the temp score, you'll obviously have to use LOTS of CC automation, typically around 5-10 CCs per instrument for each track of the whole orchestra. And this is just the MIDI programming part... You'll also most likely need to do audio automation to your audio return tracks, where you'll automate volume and some plug-ins at the track, at the send, and at the stem level. Yadda, yada... You know, the usual stuff to produce something complex and decent...

Suddenly, right after you completed a preliminary mix, Mr. Hot-shot producer from the agency drops by your studio!
Before you finish the mix, he wants to try some edits for the promo versions...
--- > You must create a 5 minute version and a 1.5 minute version out of your original 3-minute piece.
Right there, on the spot.
It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect this to be a quick and enjoyable 20-30 minute editing job, yes? Piece of cake to do with independent tracks.

You must do these edits FROM THE MIDI and/or from the automated audio tracks (remember, you can't freeze tracks to do the edits because he also wants to change the mix later for the VOs *** see below in red)


-----> Report back and tell us how long it took you to do the edits for both versions, and how you explained to the producer why, after every single cut or paste or snip that you needed to do to get the alternate versions, you had to waste so much time checking track by track to make sure the automation 1) didn't get messed up, and/or 2) to correct the unwanted ramps for every automated parameter you will surely find in the MIDI and audio tracks... Aaaaaalll of them....)

Damn! No wonder that your mix sounded all wrong now that you pasted some tracks to make the first part of the extended version...

Oh, look! The tempo map got messed up as well after a snip! No wonder the click doesn't match this section any longer.
And you hardly just got started with the editing...
Tick-Tack Tick Tack.... He needs to send the edited versions NOW. He's breathing down your neck...
Oh, and the guitars from the middle of the short version now are too soft after those couple of snips you did 15 minutes ago... What happened there?... Oh, right. Look at those damned ramps!

Oh, and remember those alternate takes you had done 3 hours ago? Surprise! Now, after your timeline edits, they are ALL out of sync with the time line of your protect.

Whoops, and what about that quick test you did 50 minutes ago, where you made a couple of tweaks to the tempo map? Damn! ALL the pitch correction you had done to the vocal tracks yesterday is now irreversibly gone with a spectacular Frankensteinian mess. You can't even undo it!


Does that sound like a fun and productive session with clients????

It was the Session From Hell, with Ramsey and everything. That's the way any similar scenario would go, unfortunately.


Who ever denies there is a HUGE problem with automation editing, necessarily does not use much automation or doesn't do much editing, or both. Otherwise, there's no way you wouldn'd notice it, let alone deny this glaring problem.
(... or perhaps you ignored my request and didn't try any of my fictitious example above and you're wilfully ignoring this just to argue for the sake of arguing and pretending DP is beyond improvement.)


*** This is a TYPICAL every-day real-life situation, where TDH and I could give a million similar scenarios, so please do not question the instruction (that would be a red-herring, and we don't need that). Simply try to do it like that and report back.


****** The solution, at least to the automation problem>

Incorporate into DP the algorithm we've talked about ad nauseam, the one that is so simple that is hardly necessary to mention again. We all know what it would be. It would probably be a one-day programming job at MOTU. And DP would improve INSTANTLY ten fold!

[nk_e]

The gauntlet has been thrown down...!

[James Steele]

I hate to be the one to ask, but what was the algorithm again?

[MIDI Life Crisis]

To approximate a real orchestra and compete with the temp score, you'll obviously have to use LOTS of CC automation, typically around 5-10 CCs per instrument for each track of the whole orchestra.

Right there I'd turn down the gig... LOL Sorry man, but that's not what composing is about. That's called engineering in the truest sense of the word, not just engineering as in prepping the final audio for a project.

No wonder your work is going slow. You need a freaking staff to do that kind of grunt work. Seriously, as a composer I simply refuse to allow myself to get that distracted by that amount of minutia. I understand the concept of being a "one-stop orchestra" and I hope you are getting paid very well for what you do, because that is waaaaaay more work than I've ever had to do on a score, including multiple scores for full (106 piece) real orchestras. I can see how it would be easy to lose sight of the forest (your score) for the trees (the level of detail you require). And I know - that's the way a lot of guys are working these days. I also agree that doing that kind of detail in DP would be extremely tedious, but I don't see that as the apps fault because it appears to be designed for a different kind of work, as far as I can tell. Frankly, from your description, it sound like you need a good database, not a sequencer.

And you also know, FM, that I've heard and love your work. It is top notch. I mean you no insult or offense by saying this, but it might be that DP is simply not the right app for what you are doing. I hope you can get that all sorted out.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

I hate to be the one to ask, but what was the algorithm again?

Escapes me as well. I'm all for a ten fold increase with a few hours of coding - as long as it doesn't break anything else!

[FMiguelez]

I hate to be the one to ask, but what was the algorithm again?

I'm glad you asked

I'm almost positive Bayswater wrote it elegantly once a while ago, but I can't find it.
Just making it up now as I go...

--- For every automated parameter that exists for the selected tracks for the selected region, take note of their initial/ending values, so that when the region is cut, snipped or pasted ANYWHERE, the resulting cut, snipped or pasted parameters ALWAYS match the source WHILE taking into account whatever automation came before and after in the target track(s).

Watch for this>>>
---- The source and target tracks may be the same or different tracks, with or without automation...
---- Source and target MIDI and audio tracks may also contain the same, similar or completely different automation parameters before/after the snip or paste.
Either way, source values must always match for all parameters at the head and tail, and this is how to avoid such extraneous and unwanted ramps.

That's basically it in spoken language!


The same would apply for cut and snip.

Tempo points should be treated similarly.


I should probably make a quick video illustrating the problem. Once you see it, the simple solution to avoid it will jump out on its own.

IOW, all this should work exactly like Soundbite Volume.

And thank you for your patience, James. If this thread, especially the title, made you roll your eyes, I don't blame you. (I wrote it during one of my drama-queen moments)

[bayswater]

FM, I don't doubt anything you've said about your problems with DP, but it seems to me that you're not likely to be better off overall with another DAW. They all have their failings, and their strong points. I think using multiple DAWs for their strengths is a reasonable approach. E.g., I'll be using Logic more for tempo maps with the new approach in LP 10.4. It seems to work a lot more like MOTU Freestyle did (ironic, eh?)

Something to keep in mind when these things happen: one reason you can make a living at this is you've figured out how to solve the problems you listed. We can hope DP will fix the things that make work difficult, and so should all the other DAW companies, but maybe that will just push the bleeding edge you're on out even further.

As for loyalty, I think a lot of it is avoiding the downtime involved in learning a new DAW (i.e., inertia), and whether you can afford it or need to do it. One of the reasons a lot of people don't need to do it with DP is the support from MOTU and the people here. Try getting that with Logic (for free, at least).

[FMiguelez]

To approximate a real orchestra and compete with the temp score, you'll obviously have to use LOTS of CC automation, typically around 5-10 CCs per instrument for each track of the whole orchestra.

Right there I'd turn down the gig... LOL Sorry man, but that's not what composing is about. That's called engineering in the truest sense of the word, not just engineering as in prepping the final audio for a project.

You can call it whatever you want... it's still how TV scores are made (i.e., the ones that networks with no budget, time or desire to deal with live orchestras demand, which means 100% of the networks for 100% of the TV shows in México, and I BET the same is true in the USA and the rest of the world as well).

Like we've discussed before, it is my job to wear as many hats as needed to comply with my broadcasting gigs. I must be a producer, a composer, an orchestrator, a mixing engineer, a mastering engineer, a receptionist, a secretary, an PR person, etc.

Since networks require orchestral tracks that sound like a live orchestra but they don't have budget or time to do the real thing, they come to people like me who can create believable scores out of my computer which can compete with the real thing. And they want them FAST and GOOD.
And...

THE ONLY WAY you can approximate a believable orchestral sound is to PROGRAM lots of CCs into your samples to bring them to life and make them sing. Period.
There's no other way to do this.

Around 6-8 CCs is typical for any given instrument. It's not so bad or out of the ordinary... You need volume and expression. You also need crossfade velocities, switches, CCs for attacks, releases, etc... No big deal. Everyday stuff for TV broadcast.

Now, IF you hire me and you have the TIME and the BUDGET to hire a real orchestra with the best players in an awesome-sounding venue, OF COURSE I'll be so happy and jump at the marvellous opportunity. There's no comparison and I'd rather have a real orchestra gig!
But that does not exist in the TV-series world anymore...
What I described is what is expected from any TV composer, as some of our colleagues in this forum could confirm.

No wonder your work is going slow. You need a freaking staff to do that kind of grunt work. Seriously, as a composer I simply refuse to allow myself to get that distracted by that amount of minutia.

But it's not minutia, Mike. It is doing whatever it takes to do the gig, and that means creating the illusion of a real orchestra out or a metal box. The only way to achieve that is by programming lots of detail. It's fun! And it's wonderful to be able to make and orchestra sing with vectors and 0s and 1s
Fun toys!

Frankly, from your description, it sound like you need a good database, not a sequencer.

Precisely my point, Mike!
All that which I described above, could/should be easily done in just a few minutes if one did not need to think about messing up the automation.
But that's how a 20 minute job turns into a full day nightmare of wasted time and frustration!
It could be SO EASY to just move tracks around as needed, with no further worries... (just like the behaviour we expect from Soundbites Volume, for instance)

And you also know, FM, that I've heard and love your work. It is top notch. I mean you no insult or offense by saying this, but it might be that DP is simply not the right app for what you are doing. I hope you can get that all sorted out.

Thank you for the kind words

But I assure you, DP definitely works for me. It has worked great for more than a decade, and I love MOST of it. It's just these "little huge" things like this really need to get fixed. They have no place in a professional DAW (no other DAW I know of has this problem).

Especially when the solution is (presumably) so easy to implement!