Why should I use Digital Performer?

[Frodo]

If I was half as organized as you it would be scary...

Inspiring as always shooshie

See what I'm sayin'? That he's that organized is scary enough. I didn't know that it was humanly probable even where the possibilities were never in question.

[Bill OC]

Because it is the most customizable DAW program on the market. I've got everything I need, set up exactly how I need it. Plus, you get the flexibility of calling up multiple mixes of the the same song, and Chunks gives you amazing power in organizing and ordering songs and sections within projects.

Except for those who need a full-fledged notation program (as I was reminded a year ago), it's got just about everything--and if the the new sample rate conversion is as good as they claim, they hit the ball way out of the park with this release.

Plus, if you are recording, say, acoustic guitar, and you don't need a strict metronome or don't want headphone encumbrance, just set up a visual metronome to keep your tempo from wondering too far.

DP7 has hit the nail right on the head, whereas working with some other programs can be like hitting your head right on the nail.

[Frodo]

DP7 has hit the nail right on the head, whereas working with some other programs can be like hitting your head right on the nail.

Ouch!

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Love it guys. The o/p has all but disappeared to work his 80s cover tunes and pop duo, yet here we are, still trying to convert him. And Shooshie giving away his trade secrets at that! LOL! I think he needs to write a book on DP and market it. He knows too much and his brain is going to explode if he doesn't let more of that knowledge out.

Back o/t... for what the o/p wants to do, he might be better off with a 4 track Tascam or (if he wants to go uptown) a 4 track TEAC 2340 or 3340. Oooooo! I've got two 2340s sittin' in storage waitin' to playback (archive) my stuff from the 70s - 90s. I just need time to bake the tapes for like 15 hours each. NOT!

And just why does the o/p want to know about DP? So he can post stuff on Myspace? I say get a Tascam and Quicktime Pro and go for it. My answer is, under the circumstances he shouldn't use DP. Or Logic, or Grageband. In fact, I think he should get a PC and Cubasis. LOL...

[Shooshie]

And Shooshie giving away his trade secrets at that! LOL! I think he needs to write a book on DP and market it. He knows too much and his brain is going to explode if he doesn't let more of that knowledge out.

I do get carried away, don't I? Well, it tends to happen around product release times -- if there's something to be excited about. I found plenty about which to be excited in the DP7 release, but I'll do my best to tone it down. It comes from two sources: genuine enthusiasm and a sort of counter-troll attitude that has simply built up over 25 years of listening to people who know nothing about the software I use cut it down to others, based on rumor and innuendo. I had to fight for the right to use my choice of software -- which made possible the things my clients hoped for -- vs. software which was "industry standard" but guaranteed that we'd have to go to a studio and spend literally 10 times more for a fairly mediocre result. It just got to the point where it made me ticked off at the people who made such irresponsible comments, and I combatted it with demonstrations and evidence rather than he-said/she-said sorts of innuendo. If they claimed that a certain star endorsed what they were saying, seeking to have the power of celebrity behind their lousy rumors, I'd simply show how that star couldn't possibly know what we were trying to achieve, and I'd demonstrate before their eyes what I was talking about. I never lost such a debate, though some clients wasted a good bit of money trying other things before they realized I was right and came back to me.

But that was then. This is now. What I was fighting for then has largely been proven now, and I do let my demonstrations and examples get out of proportion to what was said. It's probably inappropriate and off-putting, and I've been told so on a number of occasions by people who left the forum and never came back -- like Blue, for example, who was one of my favorite posters here just a few years ago.

As for trade secrets, I've just never been one to sit on a method as a "trade secret." I'm happy to arm my competition with the same knowledge that I have acquired, and compete on a level playing field. As I see it, it's good for all of us when word gets around what we can do. But I'll curb the over-reactions. … Sorry, guys...

Shoosh

[Frodo]

I do get carried away, don't I? Well, it tends to happen around product release times -- if there's something to be excited about. I found plenty about which to be excited in the DP7 release, but I'll do my best to tone it down....

Mmmmm?

Naaaaaaaaaahhhhhh.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

...I had to fight for the right to use my choice of software -- which made possible the things my clients hoped for -- vs. software which was "industry standard" but guaranteed that we'd have to go to a studio and spend literally 10 times more for a fairly mediocre result.

It's OK man, we're still allowed to type "Pro Tools" on this board. LOL!

RE: Blue - man, I wish I could write like this...

Blue

by Joni Mitchell

Blue songs are like tattoos
You know I've been to sea before
Crown and anchor me
Or let me sail away
Hey Blue, here is a song for you
Ink on a pin
Underneath the skin
An empty space to fill in
Well there're so many sinking now
You've got to keep thinking
You can make it thru these waves
Acid, booze, and ass
Needles, guns, and grass
Lots of laughs lots of laughs
Everybody's saying that hell's the hippest way to go
Well I don't think so
But I'm gonna take a look around it though
Blue I love you

Blue here is a shell for you
Inside you'll hear a sigh
A foggy lullaby
There is your song from me


© 1970; Joni Mitchell

[FMiguelez]

I haven't come up with anything in DP except splitting MIDI track to several, one track per articulation. But this is an editing nightmare.

No, the method I use is multiple tracks, and it's not at all an editing nightmare.

I know exactly what Michkhol means. I have to agree with him that editing multiple tracks for the same instrument IS a nightmare. Why? Well, when I use my VSL Pro Edition, which is not nearly as good as the new Vienna Instruments in terms of articulation-handling, I feel so slow and clumsy. I use all the techniques Shooshie describes in the tips sheet, but CC selecting is NOT the problem in this case.
For instance, a single Flute phrase may require 7 or 8 different articulations to sound decent. There are some patches that change articulations with key switches, etc., but more often than not, you need to change between legato with vibrato, staccato, sFz, non-vibrato, etc., BUT these articulations are loaded on different patches, so you MUST use different MIDI tracks for this.
So, what happens is that you quickly run out of MIDI tracks, and you end up having 8 tracks JUST for the flutes! And let alone if you want to switch between 1 flute and a2.

Most annoyingly is when you are ready to do a MIDI pre-mix. You end up hunting for the right track all over the place when writing automation. Even using the GE means you need to assign the master track constantly to access the automation for each track. So just mixing all these flute tracks to make a single phrase sound coherent, it can take lots of time switching back and forth tracks, scrolling, finding them, remembering which track contains which articulation, etc.
And if you do this for a full orchestra, well... it gets tiresome quickly.

But WORST OF ALL, is that if you want to look at your score in QS, it becomes impossible. Sometimes just the first violins occupy the whole screen. And hunting for solo instrument lines between 8 or 9 tracks ain't fun!

My solution, the only one that has worked barely acceptable for me, is to use patch changes. Gigastudio responds to these instantly. But then the big disadvantage is that you still need to deal with all these changes. I even have a few ready to be used in clippings, but you still need to assign the bank and patch numbers EACH time you need to switch an articulation (that is in a different patch), so it is not an elegant solution either.
The mixer ends up having like a zillion tracks, and it's a waste of time navigating, hiding, showing tracks, etc.

For final tweaks, I like mixing "as I go". I play the sequence, and if I hear an instrument that needs a little more volume in certain place, first I need to figure out which track among the 7 or 8 tracks for the instrument is the one that needs the tweak. Worst of all, sometimes, just to raise the volume for one measure means you have to draw automation for 3 or 4 tracks (when key switches are not enough).

I mean, I KNOW key switches help, but that forces you to use the default assignments for the sounds, and they don't have as many velocity layers, only the BASIC sounds. 99% of the time these are not nearly enough to make a convincing sound.

What I wish we could do, and PLEASE tell me if there's a way to do this, is to be able to handle these multiple-MIDI-tracks-for-one-instrument as if it were an audio submix track, where just dealing with ONE fader would affect ALL of the assigned MIDI tracks.

Long ago, MLC was kind enough to suggest using the IAC bus for this, but I could never make it work.
I really tried, but my brain was not big enough to make it happen

Now, OF COURSE I'm NOT putting down DP in anyway. I'm just pointing out something I (and Michkhol) have found as a major shortcoming.

My other option would be to stop using the Pro Edition and use the Vienna instruments, which are so much easier to handle. I bought them and have them already... I just don't have the extra computers to run them, and I've been reluctant to buy more PCs for this.

If someone can give us a step by step process on how to use the IAC bus for what I want, I will be forever grateful
Or a more elegant workflow to handle these situations would be most welcome!

I wonder if using Consoles in some way could help dealing with this. Perhaps making certain notes trigger certain patch changes for certain tracks? I've no idea if this would work. I think that chapter is the only one I haven't read...

Other than this, DP really really rocks. I can't picture myself using anything else.


[ EDIT]

Ok. To be fair, this is not necessarily a DP "problem" per se. It could also be thought as a VSL Pro Edition shortcoming (that's why they released their new interface), and I admit this is an extreme situation that applies to only very few DP users.
But still... wouldn't it be nice if we can figure out a way to handle this? IAC bus?!?!?!?!?!

[FMiguelez]

I do get carried away, don't I? ..., but I'll do my best to tone it down.

Please don't. I really enjoy your posts

As for trade secrets, I've just never been one to sit on a method as a "trade secret." I'm happy to arm my competition with the same knowledge that I have acquired, and compete on a level playing field. As I see it, it's good for all of us when word gets around what we can do. But I'll curb the over-reactions. … Sorry, guys...

You have NOTHING to be sorry about, Shoosh. We all appreciate your enthusiasm and your abandonmet to share knowledge. Do you have any idea how many people have benefited from your knowlege and tip-sharing??? Hundreds, if not thousands.
I know I have

[Shooshie]

Nando,

I've always looked at every problem with new eyes, for even problems that resemble each other might have a particular difference that enables a whole different way of working. For example: I used to work on a project in which I'd regularly create effects that might require 20 tracks for a single effect. To be specific, it was Ariel's five Yamaha Disklavier piano project, whose only rule was "pianos only." No synths, EQ's, or other artificial sound alterations. But we needed to sound like lots of different things, and if you add pianos together, you just get a "bigger piano." So, I'd sometimes have 3, 5, 10, or even 20 tracks of piano operating on a single effect. The result would sound like a synth or bells or who knows what. Because of this, some of our songs had in excess of 350 MIDI tracks. Try managing THOSE on an old 640 x 480 fixed-res monitor! I did that when the Tracks Overview window showed only cells that were shaded if they contained notes, without showing what those notes were. It required being very organized and remembering where everything was -- with the help of copious labels. I added extra MIDI tracks to use as labels and dividers. The only way to manage that much information was to be loaded with tricks.

Now, if one particular effect was, say, in quarter notes, I could expand the Tracks Overview Window until each "cell" was the space of one quarter note. Then I could vertically select all 20 tracks for the space of however many notes I needed to alter, then make the change regionally on just those notes. [by the way, that's an excellent example of why I cannot work in MIDI Region Objects. Can you imagine trying to select individual notes in 20 tracks as I just described, if you were using Logic?] If the resolution was 8th notes, another click of the Tracks Overview would bring me up to 8th note resolution per cell. I could select every other vertical column of 8th notes, give them a little velocity boost, then with a single SHIFT-DRAG, I would deselect those columns while selecting the ones in between them. Lower their velocities a few percent, and suddenly an 8th note effect acquires a rocking lilt.

I've often said that mastering DP is learning the art of selection. Those were examples of quick ways of selecting massive amounts of intricate data without even opening a MIDI Edit Window. There are other ways, too, of course; the one described in the Tips Sheet comes to mind, and it opens up to a lot of variations on itself.

Sometimes we're really focused on the intricacy of selecting something quite complex, when if we focused on its opposite we'd find it easy. Let's say we're selecting everything but 3 octaves of "E". Instead of trying to dodge all the E's, it would be far simpler to shift-double-click the E's in the piano keyboard, highlighting all the E's, then SHIFT-DRAG over everything -- inverting the entire selection so that you have everything BUT those E's.

What with all the keyboard-modifiers for the Tracks Overview Window (Tips Sheet, Secrets of the Tracks Overview Window), and with creative use of zoom and inverse selections, not to mention split notes and/or the Search feature, it's amazing how much you can do from the Tracks Overview alone. Then you combine all THAT with what you can do in the multiple MIDI Edit Window, and it expands your capabilities radically.

It sounds simple, but in truth it does require a lot of practice, challenging yourself to come up with a smarter solution each time. If all your selections are within 30 ticks of a downbeat, that begs a Search-Grid solution. It may require touching up -- eliminating a few grace notes or trilled/ornamented notes. Or maybe not. Ultimately, it's a matter of looking at each problem and finding the broader picture, then attacking it on the level of the greatest common denominator.

I certainly don't like working on multiple tracks if I don't have to, but I've never let that stop me from getting what I want. That said, I'll add that one reason I didn't buy into VSL until recently was precisely that their interface did not allow PLAYING something in the way you wanted to hear it. It was very much a programming job. Now the matrix interface brings live playing much closer to the realm of possibility, though it's still a pain with all the keyswitching. But I'd rather keyswitch than run 8 tracks for a flute.

Likewise, sometimes it's best to raise a group of velocities as a unit. Other times it's better to use the Proportional Drag (Option-Shift-Drag) and raise some velocities proportionately more than others. Or you may find yourself in the TO Window, using the Velocity Dialog box to smooth a ramp upwards for alternating 8th notes, then inverting the selection and smoothing a ramp downward of the rest of the 8ths. Sometimes you want to strecth or shrink a MIDI selection by a percentage in Scale Time. Other times you want to type in an ending attack and let DP decide what the percentage is.

The point is that there are many ways of doing things, and it takes a sharp mind to assess a situation quickly and choose the methods that are going to work the fastest for a given problem.

Of course... I make it sound like it's a race. Half the time I'm poking along, selecting one note at a time, when I realize there's got to be a better way. So, I'm not always speedy on the uptake. But once I get a rhythm going in a piece... watch out! I can make the notes fly!

Geez... I just got through saying I'd tone it down a bit. But you all seemed not to care about holding me to that. And I don't know if this gives you any ideas whatsoever, but I'm just saying that often you will find the method if you just look with new eyes, hopefully before you've finished doing it the slow way!

So. No. You can't send two MIDI channels down the same track in DP -- at least not that I know of. But I've no doubt that there remains an idea I haven't thought of that would give you a similar kind of power over those tracks. Does the interface respond to patch changes? Can you set up 8 patches and call them? (I haven't seen the old VSL interface except in videos showing people laboriously working over dozens of tracks.) It may come down to plain-old hard work in that case. If so, I urge you to get the new VSL Matrix Interface!

Shoosh

[FMiguelez]

... (I haven't seen the old VSL interface except in videos showing people laboriously working over dozens of tracks.) It may come down to plain-old hard work in that case. If so, I urge you to get the new VSL Matrix Interface!

I already have it! The WHOLE full-blown new version (all instruments and extras and extended libraries). But I haven't even installed them yet ( I just bought them because I got an unbeatable stupid-great deal, where I saved 50% off almost the whole enchilada, so I figured I should take advantage of that while the offer lasted, and start using it when I got the time and money to overhaul my rig. Too bad my savings went STRAIGHT into import-taxes ).

I CAN NOT WAIT to start using this new version, as you can imagine...

You just mentioned a lot of great tricks and work-flows. I've tried all of them. They have certainly helped on a LOT of different areas, and they do speed things up tremendously, but there are some other areas where there's nothing that can be done about it to improve the situation as it is now (unless someone offers a suggestion, or comes up with a great idea). Believe me. I've tried EVERYTHING I can think of. Unless, I'm not thinkin' enough

For instance, it annoys me to have one single phrase for an instrument spread out in 10 tracks when looking at the QS window. This makes it IMPOSSIBLE to look at more than one instrument at a time (I have two 23 inch displays), let alone a full section, let more alone a full orchestra... unless I make the QS window to a microscopic size (I've tried that too, even standing up to stick my face to the display... not that it worked either ) .
I REALLY need to see the orchestration when I'm orchestrating. Because of this, the score, as it is now, looks as if I were scoring for 10 orchestras instead of one

Mixing the volume of individual instruments that are spread across many tracks, so it sounds like a coherent phrase played by one instrument, means drawing automation for several tracks (often very differently and unintuitivly-- the volume levels don't match), even if the phrase is a few measures long. Some patches need to have key switches to deal with the volume with velocities, where some others use the MOD wheel, where some others only the volume, and yet others a combination of everything. It gets too complicated. Let alone mixing the composite "premixed" individual instrument lines with the rest of the orchestra.

In this last situation, your tips in the Tips Sheet have become EXTREMELY useful when I need to select and manipulate data, but I could work AT LEAST 10 times faster if there were a way to handle this particular situation with so many tracks better.
I'm sure Michkhol will agree with me on that one too.

So, I suppose it's either, figuring out how to do the "MIDI Stem mix" for each instrument with the IAC bus, or finally gathering the cojones, time and money to overhaul my rig and implement my Vienna Instruments collection (with all the necessary changes and purchases that it would entail). Or perhaps investigate if Consoles would be helpful here.

But, as I wrote in the edited part at the bottom of my last post up-thread, this is hardly DP's "fault", and this doesn't apply to the majority of DP users anyway. So I admit it wouldn't necessarily be fair to call this a DP shortcoming.

Besides, doing what I want in something like Logic, even if it supports the multiple-MIDI-channel-in-the-same-track thing, would be like leaving a momentary bad dream to enter a PERMANENT TERRIBLE nightmare. Now, THAT would be a nightmare
And it is a bad dream with DP ONLY in this particular situation. The rest is... like a FAIRY TALE in DP

[Shooshie]

Ok, now that you're talking specifics, I immediately see the need. Quickscribe needs to act like a combination of MIDI Edit Windows and the T.O.W's track folders. You need the ability to display all tracks from a given folder as if they were one track, and yet still be able to select the active track for editing.

There's a suggestion for MOTU, which they just might go for if you explain the reason for it -- requiring many tracks for a VI. Perhaps they'd simplify it further and allow us some way of sending multiple MIDI Channels through a single track.

But then again, keyswitching does the same thing, and it can be made invisible in QS.

I think DP has reached a point in its OSX evolution that maybe they can start adding features and expanding it again. I may be wrong, but I sure HOPE that's the case. I mean, one of these days they've GOT to have it 64-bit ready, and that means Cocoa, and that means completely rewritten, and that means no more resources wasted on just bringing it up to par with where it was, pre-Cocoa. They can start moving ahead. Ideas like this just might inspire them!

Shooshie

[FMiguelez]

Ok, now that you're talking specifics, I immediately see the need. Quickscribe needs to act like a combination of MIDI Edit Windows and the T.O.W's track folders. You need the ability to display all tracks from a given folder as if they were one track, and yet still be able to select the active track for editing.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There's a suggestion for MOTU, which they just might go for if you explain the reason for it -- requiring many tracks for a VI. Perhaps they'd simplify it further and allow us some way of sending multiple MIDI Channels through a single track.

YES!!!!! They could implement these 2 features in a hopefully not-too-distant future release.

I think DP has reached a point in its OSX evolution that maybe they can start adding features and expanding it again. I may be wrong, but I sure HOPE that's the case. I mean, one of these days they've GOT to have it 64-bit ready, and that means Cocoa, and that means completely rewritten, and that means no more resources wasted on just bringing it up to par with where it was, pre-Cocoa. They can start moving ahead. Ideas like this just might inspire them!

That's very inspiring, my friend!

Anyway. I will send those suggestions to MOTU. Little to lose. Lots to gain.



BTW, Berlioz would've probably actually ENJOYED this:

...Because of this, the score, as it is now, looks as if I were scoring for 10 orchestras instead of one

I remember that passage on his orchestration treatise where he describes how he would handle an imaginary HUGE orchestra, with literarily HUNDREDS of musicians (like 30 horns, dozens of Cellos, etc.).
It just came to mind