I’ve been too busy to really think about that. It works. I’m good.That is actually the counter-intuitive thing if you really think about it
![Idea :idea:](./images/smilies/icon_idea.gif)
Moderator: James Steele
I’ve been too busy to really think about that. It works. I’m good.That is actually the counter-intuitive thing if you really think about it
DP has no ability to limit the note range of a MIDI track. Say C0 to C3 is channel 1 C#3 to C8 is Channel 2. This way you can control two different instruments using the same MIDI controller on a DAW level. Say Diva on a track limited to C0-C3 and Massive on C#3-C8, simply arming both tracks you have a split keyboard with two sounds. Logic, Live, Bitwig, Reaper, all the other DAWs I have used can do this. It's one of the weirdest longstanding shortcomings in DP, which is otherwise really solid MIDI wise.dewdman42 wrote: I'm unfamiliar with the DP note range thing you're talking about. what is that?
I think this is you being really used to Logics weird lack of ultra transparent bussing. In Live, Reaper and DP MIDI is routed via it's own bus really, but in Logic it's different. The way Logic now assigns multi instruments is not intuitive or normal. watching volume meters bounce on what look like identical instrument tracks but are actually basically MIDI tracks routed to the Multi is bizzaro.I agree. I think this is mainly because DP doesn't really have a separate distinction between a track and a channel. In LogicPro they are two separate things, connected. A track is assigned to a mixer channel. The mixer channel could be a MIDI channel, instrument channel, audio channel, aux channel, etc. The track itself just has regions on it and feeds the region data to whatever object it is assigned to. In that way, an "Instrument Track" in Logic Pro is really a "track" that is connected to an instrument channel, where the plugin is hosted. It looks like a single track, and is.
Honestly DP's method is as straightforward as you can get, MIDI tracks are MIDI tracks, whether they address software or hardware. Instrument tracks host track automation and listen to MIDI.DP just has tracks (excluding V-racks for the moment). and for whatever the reason they have decide that in order to have a MIDI track feeding to an instrument plugin, you need a second track to host the instrument plugin, which I also find a bit annoying, but that one is not the end of the world.
You can always use a V-Rack I think, which can help to consolidate things a bit into less tracks of each sequence. But Its been a while since I used DP, but I think that may result in some automation hassles when using a V-Rack, can't remember now.
As stated earlier, if a software instrument is in a V-Rack it can't do track automation, and the MIDI track would have to somehow automagically separate from the V-Rack to live in the track. I think this technical glitch is why we don't see software instruments in DP with a MIDI track channel attached like every other DAW. The benefit of Chunks complicates the transition if it were to happen.I personally do not think at all that chunks could not be worked through this...I can't see any reason why a sequence with instruments on the same track as the MIDI (like Cubase for example), couldn't be used as a chunk that way.
Think you can see the benefit and disadvantages here. Personally I like having the actual MIDI in a track, which would be sample accurate of course, VS it being sample accurate but not getting the MIDI. I think it works well in Logic because of Logics port shortcoming, it likes hosting the MIDI plug in on the same track because otherwise it would send to all tracks. Like someone else mentioned it's easy to send MIDI from a VI MIID FX plug in to multiple VSTs in DP compared.But anyway with some (or maybe all) of the mentioned DAW's, when the MIDI is fed back into the input of a MIDI track, the timestamp from the region where it originated, is lost..it becomes more like a live MIDI event and gets a new timestamp. I did a bunch of testing using scripter's to print out the timestamp. Lost. So not sample accurate. Still close enough most people would probably not notice, but nonetheless, not sample accurate. .............
Back to LogicPro, its the only DAW that handles MIDI plugins really correctly in all respects related to this. Your instrument channel there has a midifx section where you can have as many aumfx plugins as you want... they all handle all ports and channels in the MIDI plugin and pass it all to the instrument. All timestamps are absolutely preserved. no extra tracks in order to route. You can have a series of MIDI plugins if you want...no problem. Clean, easy and accurate.
The one downside of LogicPro MIDI fx is that there is no good way to feed the output from MIDI fx back to a track to record as MIDI to a new region...which of course is easy with Cubase/Dp where you are forced to route MIDI fx chains through separate tracks in order to even do it...so you can easily record the MIDI fx results to a new region if you want. so they win there, but at the expense of a lot of complexity and problems when you don't need to actually do that.
That goes back to the MIDI bussing system, in Live and DP MIDI is port and channel specific. Logic does MPE pretty well because of this though, but not as good as Bitwig, which can separate controllers to VSTi's by channel. Of all of them, Bitwig and R do the bussing and routing the best, no comparison.Anyway the other problem DP has with MIDI plugin chaining is that way it gives you a list of MIDI ports to choose as the input and output. It lists out each MIDI channel as a separate selectiable thing. There is no way to feed a MIDI track to a MIDI plugin and get ALL MIDI channels fed to the next MIDI track and instrument. They don't have an ALL option for when you select which MIDI device to feed a MIDI track, you have to select one of the 16 MIDI channels as the input device to the next MIDI track in the chain.
Well now you're onto a separate topic from what I was talking about before. Multi-timbral instrument handling is not the same topic as single instrument tracks. Multi-timbral instrument handling in LogicPro is definitely sketchy, I make no argument there. its workable once you get used to it, but to this day still has many odd things going on with it, but honestly most people don't use multi-timbral instruments...so its kind of a moot point...but definitely a point worth considering...LogicPro's handling of multi-timbral instruments is not the greatest. it will basically works though once you know what you're doing with the software. In comparison, DP is very much more straightforward to assign MIDI tracks to different MIDI channels of a multi-timbral instrument. No question.Michael Canavan wrote:I think this is you being really used to Logics weird lack of ultra transparent bussing. In Live, R••••• and DP MIDI is routed via it's own bus really, but in Logic it's different. The way Logic now assigns multi instruments is not intuitive or normal. watching volume meters bounce on what look like identical instrument tracks but are actually basically MIDI tracks routed to the Multi is bizzaro.I agree. I think this is mainly because DP doesn't really have a separate distinction between a track and a channel. In LogicPro they are two separate things, connected. A track is assigned to a mixer channel. The mixer channel could be a MIDI channel, instrument channel, audio channel, aux channel, etc. The track itself just has regions on it and feeds the region data to whatever object it is assigned to. In that way, an "Instrument Track" in Logic Pro is really a "track" that is connected to an instrument channel, where the plugin is hosted. It looks like a single track, and is.
I do not think DP's need to use two tracks for one instrument is the ideal way. I'm not alone in that assessment. You can get around the nuttiness by using V-Racks, as I just explained. Thank you.Honestly DP's method is as straightforward as you can get, MIDI tracks are MIDI tracks, whether they address software or hardware. Instrument tracks host track automation and listen to MIDI.DP just has tracks (excluding V-racks for the moment). and for whatever the reason they have decide that in order to have a MIDI track feeding to an instrument plugin, you need a second track to host the instrument plugin, which I also find a bit annoying, but that one is not the end of the world.
You can always use a V-Rack I think, which can help to consolidate things a bit into less tracks of each sequence. But Its been a while since I used DP, but I think that may result in some automation hassles when using a V-Rack, can't remember now.
Exactly, well that is part of the problem. If you need to do non-MIDI automation, you can't put your instrument in the V-Rack...you have to use multiple tracks and see back to my previous annoyance.V-Racks do not host track automation, so a AUi or VSTi hosted in a V-Rack cannot do track automation. For the most part this isn't that big of a deal, especially if you keep V-Racks filled with samplers etc.
I think you are confusing the conversation now. Forget about V-racks. what you originally said and that I responded to had nothing to do with V-Racks. You said that you thought it would not be possible for MOTU to consolidate instrument tracks into a single MIDI/instrument track because of chunks. I am saying, I don't see any reason why they couldn't do that and be fully usable as chunks.As stated earlier, if a software instrument is in a V-Rack it can't do track automation, and the MIDI track would have to somehow automagically separate from the V-Rack to live in the track. I think this technical glitch is why we don't see software instruments in DP with a MIDI track channel attached like every other DAW. The benefit of Chunks complicates the transition if it were to happen.I personally do not think at all that chunks could not be worked through this...I can't see any reason why a sequence with instruments on the same track as the MIDI (like Cubase for example), couldn't be used as a chunk that way.
I don't really understand your point here, so i can't comment..Think you can see the benefit and disadvantages here. Personally I like having the actual MIDI in a track, which would be sample accurate of course, VS it being sample accurate but not getting the MIDI.
In LogicPro, midifx plugins do not reside on tracks!! They reside on instrument channels. Tracks are assigned to send their data to one or more instrument channels (or other things). All DAW's will render sample accurate MIDI from the region of the track through the plugin. That is fine. but what I found in the testing I did some months ago with DP, Cubase and S1, was that the INPUT to MIDI tracks, may overwrite any existing timestamp...because the software kind of assumes the MIDI event needs to be timestamped.I think it works well in Logic because of Logics port shortcoming, it likes hosting the MIDI plug in on the same track because otherwise it would send to all tracks. Like someone else mentioned it's easy to send MIDI from a VI MIID FX plug in to multiple VSTs in DP compared.
So is LogicPro?Anyway the other problem DP has with MIDI plugin chaining is that way it gives you a list of MIDI ports to choose as the input and output. It lists out each MIDI channel as a separate selectiable thing. There is no way to feed a MIDI track to a MIDI plugin and get ALL MIDI channels fed to the next MIDI track and instrument. They don't have an ALL option for when you select which MIDI device to feed a MIDI track, you have to select one of the 16 MIDI channels as the input device to the next MIDI track in the chain.
That goes back to the MIDI bussing system, in Live and DP MIDI is port and channel specific.
Hmm, I think you're just used to the way Logic works at this point, because there's nothing intuitive about the fact that a basic MIDI track in Logic cannot address an AUi, deemed "external MIDI" now, this threw me for a loop recently revisiting Logic. Live, DP etc. can do this. It's awkward in Bitwig as well, but not as awkward as Logic.dewdman42 wrote: Just to clarify. LogicPro can do what you are asking about also. More then one track can be assigned to the same instrument channel. Just like in DP. The only difference is that its being routed to a "channel" rather then to another track. Myself I do not find it "intuitive" in DP to have one track with regions and another track without any regions, but hosting the plugin. That is actually the counter-intuitive thing if you really think about it. DP does provide V-Racks, which is more similar to the LogicPro approach, because in a V-Rack you basically are adding channels, without tracks...more like LogicPro's default approach.
No, it's not. In Logic you cannot assign a specific MIDI controller to a specific software instrument by port, only channel. You probably could wire something up in the Environment but by default Logic is non port specific with incoming MIDI. It's my biggest pet peeve with Logic.dewdman42 wrote:So is LogicPro?Michael Canavan wrote: That goes back to the MIDI bussing system, in Live and DP MIDI is port and channel specific.
I'm not in disagreement. I would bet it happens. Matt Leblank addressed this in the webinars, that MOTU are distinctly aware that people want MPE and people want articulation mappings. A side effect probably of MPE support would be an OMNI that worked. It's also Live's shortcoming MPE wise as well, that it doesn't have a true Omni in/out mode.dewdman42 wrote:well actually my last comment...I guess perhaps if you had a MIDI plugin the that channelizes, then you could theoretically create 16 new MIDI tracks just to route the results from the MIDI plugin back to a single instance of Vepro...so yea you could do it, but in that situation you would literally need 19 tracks to accomplish the task of say an instrument like EW play, with articulations on each MIDI channel and a MIDI plugin that channelizes the notes depending on some information...and all 16 of those channels then need to be funneled back to a single instrument plugin such as EW PLAY or VePro or whatever..
DP is definitely clunky here. If they added an ALL channel or OMNI for the input to a MIDI track...would be easier.
there are two ways to do that now. So not sure what you're meaning to say.Michael Canavan wrote: Hmm, I think you're just used to the way Logic works at this point, because there's nothing intuitive about the fact that a basic MIDI track in Logic cannot address an AUi, deemed "external MIDI" now,
Like all software you have to learn how to use it.Seriously, Logics set up is flatly more confusing, it's not worse or anything, it's just not at all intuitive.
LogicPro has that too.DP and Live IMO have the easiest to figure out routing, there's no mysteries, MIDI tracks in DP are MIDI tracks
You're saying some confusing things and I would say that perhaps you never really mastered LogicPro based on what you just said, and that's fine, but just keeping it real, you're making it sound a lot worse then it really is. It makes sense when you understand it. My main beef with LogicPro routing is that I can't record the output of a MIDI plugin to a new region. And with DP my main routing beef is that I need 4 tracks to handle a MIDI plugin...and the two problems I already mentioned cause pain and suffering as well.Logic on the other hand has workarounds for some of it's oddities. Because it doesn't differentiate MIDI by port in old timey days you would hard wire in the Environment multi out AUi's to MIDI tracks, but now you use these weird auxiliary MIDI tracks that all have the fader on them for some gawdawful reason. Actual external MIDI tracks in Logic suffer none of this. These aren't intuitive things, you have to know them, it's not at all like setting up a multi in Live for instance.
Let's hope.Michael Canavan wrote:
I'm not in disagreement. I would bet it happens. Matt Leblank addressed this in the webinars, that MOTU are distinctly aware that people want MPE and people want articulation mappings. A side effect probably of MPE support would be an OMNI that worked. It's also Live's shortcoming MPE wise as well, that it doesn't have a true Omni in/out mode.
we were talking about different topics again, talking past each other. I thought we were talking about playback. This is about when you record MIDI from your controllers.Michael Canavan wrote:No, it's not. In Logic you cannot assign a specific MIDI controller to a specific software instrument by port, only channel. You probably could wire something up in the Environment but by default Logic is non port specific with incoming MIDI. It's my biggest pet peeve with Logic.dewdman42 wrote:So is LogicPro?Michael Canavan wrote: That goes back to the MIDI bussing system, in Live and DP MIDI is port and channel specific.
I totally get you. If you need the controllers routed to different tracks for recording or explicitly to different instruments at the same time...LogicPro is a PITA, no doubt.This is why in Bitwig I can use an MPE controller and my MPK88 at the same time no problem.
This isn't possible in Logic without serious Environment work.
I used Logic exclusively from 2000 to about 2008, I'm rusty now of course, but I would say more that you're indoctrinated rather than I'm unfamiliar. The routing in Logic is whack, it always has been, it's a fantastic DAW, that's not even a question. I'm very tempted to jump back on board and I'm one of those gluttons for punishment that likes learning new tricks etc. I think so far it's obvious that Apple took a little more time with their version of Clips than MOTU did, it's out the door in better shape, but both have crashed my system.dewdman42 wrote: You're saying some confusing things and I would say that perhaps you never really mastered LogicPro based on what you just said, and that's fine, but just keeping it real, you're making it sound a lot worse then it really is.
I'm not disagreeing with you here, but you keep missing my point about why it might be the way it is.I'd still much prefer one track per instrument though. Just sayin'.
Of the new 10.5 features. the new step Sequencer is probably the most interesting to me. I don't really need that live clips approach, and can't say anything about how good or bad it is.Michael Canavan wrote: I think so far it's obvious that Apple took a little more time with their version of Clips than MOTU did,
As i said, V-racks is a separate discussion. the question is about why we can't have a single instrument track and have to have two tracks for every instrument... You said that would be a problem with chunks. I say no it doesn't have to to be. It could be done without V-racks, MOTU just needs to implement it. I'm not going to speculate as to why they choose not to, that is foolish.I'm not disagreeing with you here, but you keep missing my point about why it might be the way it is.
V-Racks exist as a way to have virtual instruments outside of Chunks. V-Racked instruments cannot have track automation, since no track exists. So, a virtual instrument track with MIDI in it would have to shed it's track automation and it's MIDI track in order to be moved to a V-Rack. It's not an untypical thing to do, to move a VST/AU to a V-Rack in order to work on a song in more than one Chunk etc.
You are conflating topics. Forget V-Racks. Just built a friggin instrument track that hosts both the MIDI region and the plugin hosting in one track. It can be chunk able. Done.I've been saying this is probably why we don't see a single VI with a MIDI channel attached to it, I imagine that to be a big task, splitting a VI from it's MIDI and losing it's track automation so you can send it to a V-Rack. (the obvious to us laypeople anyway solution would be a new VI category that was not V-Rack able.)
Well that's what Miller's product is about. I think that would be a moving target. But DP needs an engine to support articulation presets, some enterprising users, such as Babylon Waves would instantly release a set of presets for it to cover all the big libraries.One thing MOTU could do that would do it for me articulation wise is if they bothered to do the assignments so you had a complete set of the 20 or so companies that do articulation instruments.
It's not a separate discussion. V-Racks exist, they are problem for MIDI and track automation when porting to a V-Rack. I'm actually kind of confused about how you got stuck on this notion that I claimed Chunks and only Chunks get in the way of MIDI on an instrument track? You can't just "forget" V-Racks, that doesn't make any sense, they conflate the issue, it's obvious, no speculation needed. You can either be stuck on why something isn't the way you want it to be or you can look at how it operates and try to understand why it works the way it does.dewdman42 wrote: As i said, V-racks is a separate discussion. the question is about why we can't have a single instrument track and have to have two tracks for every instrument... You said that would be a problem with chunks. I say no it doesn't have to to be. It could be done without V-racks, MOTU just needs to implement it. I'm not going to speculate as to why they choose not to, that is foolish.
lol, you're the one using the "noob" routine.one thing I am definitely not is indoctrinated. Please. That's rather insulting. I manage to piss off everyone in every tribal forum like this one for exactly the reason that I am not indoctrinated to any one way. Just keeping it real.
In response to my attacks on Logics weird bussing compared to DP, Live etc.You're saying some confusing things and I would say that perhaps you never really mastered LogicPro based on what you just said, and that's fine, but just keeping it real, you're making it sound a lot worse then it really is.