DP's way of handling Instrument tracks and MIDI

[MW1]

As far as I'm aware, DP is the only DAW that still requires you to keep MIDI and instrument tracks as separate entities.

For old style multi-timbral instruments this method worked well enough and I'm used to DP's way of handling VI's.

However, the problem I'm encountering more and more is that many recent VI's now don't operate multi-timbrally. Spitfire's BBC SO and their Abbey Road One Orchestra are just a couple of examples of libraries that require you to load separate instances for each instrument. Reason Rack also requires you work this way.

Even a modestly sized template with some articulations for, say, Spitfire BBC Orchestra might run to well over 20 instruments - but that results in over 40 tracks in DP... I know you can hide tracks or group them into folders etc but it seems like a clumsy way of working. Larger templates start to become quite unwieldy with the track bloat.

Given this trend, I feel DP's way of handling VI's is becoming somewhat outmoded and wonder if MOTU will ever adopt the integrated instrument/MIDI track method you find in Logic, Cubase, Pro Tools etc.

[monkey man]

Obviously this has been discussed many times.

MHO, and I think many others agree, is that we ought to be given the option to work either way.

I firmly believe that this ought to be taken a little step further for ultimate flexibility:
Let us choose which paradigm to follow when we create an instrument track. IOW, on a per-instrument basis.

[Kurt Cowling]

One advantage of the separate tracks is the integration with V-racks.

[bayswater]

I agree that the way it works now makes more sense when you use V-Racks. I've notice the problem with Spitfire in DP. What does it do if you end up with 20 Spitfire instances? Does it smart enough to run one instance that covers all the tracks, or does it actually use 20 x the CPU you would use for on track?
I know the Logic's EXS24 was smart enough to figure out that it only had to be running once regardless of the number of tracks using it, but what about other VIs?

[HCMarkus]

I like it the way it is. I have complete control over how I allocate resources and what I choose to show in various windows.

Just sayin'.

But, as long as the traditional approach remains available, I'd be fine with MOTU providing alternates.

[stubbsonic]

And to state it a little more strongly, if they get rid of the way it works now, I will be really pissed.

V-Racks seems like your way around the "I don't like so many tracks" issue.

[Michael Canavan]

Personally I would like it if you could get a MIDI channel on an instrument track, but I get why with V-Racks it is the way it is. DP has to do some clever coding to erase automation data on the fly if you mistakenly select and send the instrument track to a V-Rack. Think about it also having to separate out MIDI as well in that scenario.

Coming from other DAWs unless you're using V-racks or VEP the whole thing can get messy quick, but mostly it's a minor concern. I know that people coming from other DAWs do find it difficult to grasp as a positive thing, which in that sense the option to have a MIDI track on an instrument track would be a good thing. As it stands all that exist on there is automation data, so if you're not automating volume or some parameter in the Tracks and Sequence windows it's just taking up space.

Anyway, I think considering how long it's been like this, we're probably not seeing any movement in this front. You either figure out a workaround or you don't.

[bayswater]

Maybe a way to deal with this would be an update that adds Clips to Instrument tracks.

[Releaux]

I'm almost finished with my DP translations of the Spitfire BBCSO template and, yes, having these split can make the number of tracks look overwhelming. As others have said, I wouldn't mind the ability to collapse a MIDI/Instrument track pairing down to a single thing, or a new "VI" track that combined them (e.g., a MIDI track with a special "Instrument Insert" or something...). For that matter, it would be interesting to have a "Total Combo" track that could show associated MIDI, VI, and audio as different views but in a single track channel.

But I definitely don't want MOTU to get rid of the ability to have them separated.While Spitfire's native player isn't multitimbral, it's still relatively new and I'd be surprised if that's not in their roadmap. More importantly, there are a ton of plugins (and hardware synths) that are multitimbral, and I even sometimes use multiple MIDI tracks that are routed to the same place for more experimental / ambient things.

[HCMarkus]

I even sometimes use multiple MIDI tracks that are routed to the same place for more experimental / ambient things.

I do this all the time, sometimes to simplify punch in/out when tracking MIDI, sometimes to add controller data in its own, easy to manipulate track.

[gzap]

I'm almost finished with my DP translations of the Spitfire BBCSO template and, yes, having these split can make the number of tracks look overwhelming. As others have said, I wouldn't mind the ability to collapse a MIDI/Instrument track pairing down to a single thing, or a new "VI" track that combined them (e.g., a MIDI track with a special "Instrument Insert" or something...). For that matter, it would be interesting to have a "Total Combo" track that could show associated MIDI, VI, and audio as different views but in a single track channel.

But I definitely don't want MOTU to get rid of the ability to have them separated.While Spitfire's native player isn't multitimbral, it's still relatively new and I'd be surprised if that's not in their roadmap. More importantly, there are a ton of plugins (and hardware synths) that are multitimbral, and I even sometimes use multiple MIDI tracks that are routed to the same place for more experimental / ambient things.

I've been doing some writing in Dorico with BBCSO and it makes me realize what I'd love to see.
Keyswitching setup and/or expression maps.

Writing in Dorico is awesome, its so nice just inputting 'pizz' and having the keyswitch triggered. One track and visual references of what keyswitch you're on. If DP had a keyswitch lane in MIDI tracks that showed in quickscribe and editors as a bar and were exempt from transposing it would mean so many fewer tracks and clearer writing.

[dewdman42]

So called "Instrument tracks", that are found in most other DAW's would be a useful addition. Don't do away with MIDI tracks, just provide a way that DP's instrument tracks can also function like MIDI tracks with their own regions, MIDI fx section, etc..where the instrument plugin is on the same track where the MIDI is. The existing MIDI track concept is still useful...

Except I would like to see also the concept of a V-Instrument track... which is similar as a raw MIDI track, but would function as a thin connector to some other instrument track that is on a V-rack somewhere. But isn't that what a MIDI track is? Well almost... A V-Instrument track would also be able to identify plugin parameters on the yonder instrument track and automate them in the sequence.

So basically, what I'm saying is:

1. Make DP instrument tracks more self contained, able to contain the MIDI region data instead of requiring the MIDI/Inst pairing of two seperate tracks
2. Make a new concept of a V-Inst track that is similar as #1 above but connects to a yonder actual Instrument track that is probably on a V-rack.
3. keep old school MIDI tracks around perhaps for old times sake, but #2 above would probably be used by most people when using V-Racks as it would be more complete and access things like plugin parameters for better automation of plugins residing in a V-Rack.

[Michael Canavan]

So called "Instrument tracks", that are found in most other DAW's would be a useful addition. Don't do away with MIDI tracks, just provide a way that DP's instrument tracks can also function like MIDI tracks with their own regions, MIDI fx section, etc..where the instrument plugin is on the same track where the MIDI is. The existing MIDI track concept is still useful...

Except I would like to see also the concept of a V-Instrument track... which is similar as a raw MIDI track, but would function as a thin connector to some other instrument track that is on a V-rack somewhere. But isn't that what a MIDI track is? Well almost... A V-Instrument track would also be able to identify plugin parameters on the yonder instrument track and automate them in the sequence.

So basically, what I'm saying is:

1. Make DP instrument tracks more self contained, able to contain the MIDI region data instead of requiring the MIDI/Inst pairing of two seperate tracks
2. Make a new concept of a V-Inst track that is similar as #1 above but connects to a yonder actual Instrument track that is probably on a V-rack.
3. keep old school MIDI tracks around perhaps for old times sake, but #2 above would probably be used by most people when using V-Racks as it would be more complete and access things like plugin parameters for better automation of plugins residing in a V-Rack.

Just so I'm following, your V-Instrument track is essentially there for track automation for V-Racked instruments? plus maybe MIDI between instruments?

Anything that happens I really don't want to see old school MIDI tracks go away, I really appreciate them compared to Logic or Bitwigs "instrument" tracks for multis, which are essentially a MIDI and aux track. it's a nice compact concept but it's slightly annoying at times to me. Live does a good job with routing this way IMO.

[dewdman42]

Two things..

one is to have a track that consolidates into one track what is currently two in DP (unlike most other 'modern DAW's). Allow instrument tracks to have MIDI regions and MIDI-related functions that are currently only on DP's MIDI tracks...midifx, for example....So combine those into one so called Instrument track..as is the case with most modern DAW's

second thing is to allow that instrument track to be a V-instrument track. In fact it could still just be one track type....all the same features...except it would be able to either host its own instrument plugin...or....connect indirectly to a V-rack based instrument which is holding an instrument plugin. Either way...yes...this would allow a sequence's instrument track to automate a plugin that is residing in a V-Rack.

I don't see any reason why the old MIDI tracks would need to go away, but mainly the only people using them (if both of the above were satisfied), would be for sequencing external devices...which is fine... or if you wanted you could still do things the old way (and for backwards compatibility) of routing a MIDI track to an instrument track on the sequence or a V-Rack,

[HCMarkus]

You'll have to pry multiple MIDI tracks from my cold, dead hands. And I don't use outboard synths.