Digital Performer 5 manual

stickwolf · Post by **stickwolf** » Sat May 27, 2006 4:57 pm

emulatorloo wrote: or there's always the alphabetical INDEX - pages 1055 to 1074

-----------

Yes but we know that is nothing compared to searching. How often when using a normal PDF manual for something do you find that searching gets you information you need and the index often isn't enough? That happens to me a lot.

Shooshie · Post by **Shooshie** » Sat May 27, 2006 5:52 pm

Guitar Gaz wrote:Long time DP users seem very touchy about people criticising DP - but if you have used a program like Opcode Vision you can't help but feel that DP is clunky on many basic issues of particularly MIDI recording and editing. I'm sure the deep complexity is great, and I'll use that for mixing and mastering. But after giving DP 3 years I have gone back to OS9 and Vision - and it is still a better program than DP for getting a song or piece of music together. The manual is a reflection of the program - and therefore divides opinion

I think people should use whatever they like, but to criticize the tool that other people rave about seems naive and uninformed. In the early days of my MIDI work I used both Vision and Digital Performer. I chose DP (well, actually it was just "Performer" for me in those days) because I found it superior to Vision. I tried Studio Vision a few years later (on someone else's machine), which only confirmed that I had made the right choice. But I'm a classically oriented musician who uses classical structure when working in MIDI, and I found that easier for me to do in Performer and Digital Performer than in Vision, which seemed more suited for songwriters. What can I say? Some people rave about Nikons and others think Canon is the last word in Photography. It's really about what fits you the best. Digital Performer fits me, and I would have trouble doing some of the things that I do if I used any other DAW.

But if Guitar Gaz needs Vision in OS9, then by george, he should USE Vision in OS9. Just don't lay it on so thick for the rest of us who find it a bit inadequate for our needs.

Shooshie

Shooshie · Post by **Shooshie** » Sat May 27, 2006 5:57 pm

martian wrote:must admit I wish there was a PDF version..

I haven't read it cover to cover - and if i am looking for stuff it would be nice to search index... somethings aren't in the index or the phrase isn't there..

How is it a security device anyway?

I'm with you on that. Sometimes I just wish I had a digital version so that I could do searches until I come up with precisely what I'm looking for. But I'm getting to the point where there's nothing left in the manual that's a mystery to me. Maybe a couple of things, but not much. Still, the idea of being able to search for text strings has always made me long for a digital version of the manual.

Copy protection? I think their copy protection works pretty well. The manual certainly doesn't need to be used that way, and I don't think MOTU intends it that way. It's just a deep program that needs a lot of reference.

Shooshie

Spikey Horse · Post by **Spikey Horse** » Sat May 27, 2006 5:58 pm

It would only take 100 unicornation members working on 10 pages each for us to make our own .pdf manual.....

Shooshie can compile the submissions - he's good at that sort of thing.

Job done.

(only joking Shooshie

)

Guitar Gaz · Post by **Guitar Gaz** » Sat May 27, 2006 6:24 pm

But if Guitar Gaz needs Vision in OS9, then by george, he should USE Vision in OS9. Just don't lay it on so thick for the rest of us who find it a bit inadequate for our needs.

See what I mean about touchy - just giving my opinion after years of trying. I will still use DP in the future of course - I have bought the program and have a right to say where I think it is inadequate for my needs and where older programs are still better in my opinion. I think that in some areas it is clunky - you think its so great that it has no faults or does not bear comparison with other programs. Obviously if I don't agree with you guys I'm not allowed to comment....in which case I shall comment no more on this forum as my opinions don't seem welcome. See ya....

billf · Post by **billf** » Sat May 27, 2006 9:44 pm

buddhabelly wrote:Logic has complete printed manuals, 2 actually. Final Cut has 4 or 5. Motion doesn't. However, when I'm in the middle of something, I'd rather bring up a helpfile (which in Logic or FCP is a PDF replica of their manuals) and do a search. No I wouldn't like to just have a PDF to read, but I'd like one in addition.

I barely touched DP4.5 manual for a while, though I did have previous experience with a DAW, so I had a feel for the concept.

Logic Express doesn't have a printed manual. Neither does Motion, Soundtrack Pro, etc. But they all have large PDF manuals. What's important is that software providers need to remember that some users like printed manuals, and others like PDF's. Supply me with both, I'm happy. If you only give me one choice, make it printed.

mhschmieder · Post by **mhschmieder** » Sat May 27, 2006 10:23 pm

I agree. PDF's are too hard on the eyes at half-size, which is about the ratio we have to deal with if we have a 14" to 15" monitor. Besides which, don't we all need to give our eyes a rest from the computer monitor now and then? But yes, a PDF in addition is nice (but as a second priority), for doing direct searches (most books have an unreliable or incomplete index).

martian · Post by **martian** » Sat May 27, 2006 10:56 pm

would it be legal to do a scan and use OCR on it?

Or even just typin it in...

But MOTU must have a reason for not releasing the file - I mean it's obviously on disk some where......

I do find it irritating - with the index and stuff- sometimes many different pages for a phrase which occurs in different editors ...

Guitar Gaz · Post by **Guitar Gaz** » Sun May 28, 2006 3:53 am

But I'm a classically oriented musician who uses classical structure when working in MIDI, and I found that easier for me to do in Performer and Digital Performer than in Vision, which seemed more suited for songwriters. What can I say?

I am a songwriter who works better with small sequences strung together - in this respect DP is not so easy to use - I am not the only one who thinks this as several posts testify - the Song window in particular feels like an add-on that doesn't work very well. And setting up lots of sequences (Verse, Chorus etc) is fiddly too - tempo and loop points much easier to set than done than in DP, individual mixers for each sequence really annoying (rather than one master mixer elsewhere) - all these things testify to the fact that DP is better for one long sequence. Which is not great for songwriters who are trying things out, sketching ideas, then trying out different verse chorus arrangements with subtle changes etc.

This is my main point - it suits some musicians not others. Which is why I think DP will struggle in the future against other more songwriter friendly software. But as I said I will still use it for mastering and some recording - but not for sketching out song ideas. I reserve the right to point this out. The manual is an example of this in my opinion. Anyway thanks for all the help Shooshie.

Shooshie · Post by **Shooshie** » Sun May 28, 2006 3:54 am

Guitar Gaz wrote:
But if Guitar Gaz needs Vision in OS9, then by george, he should USE Vision in OS9. Just don't lay it on so thick for the rest of us who find it a bit inadequate for our needs.
See what I mean about touchy - just giving my opinion after years of trying. I will still use DP in the future of course - I have bought the program and have a right to say where I think it is inadequate for my needs and where older programs are still better in my opinion. I think that in some areas it is clunky - you think its so great that it has no faults or does not bear comparison with other programs. Obviously if I don't agree with you guys I'm not allowed to comment....in which case I shall comment no more on this forum as my opinions don't seem welcome. See ya....

Er... Gaz, that was really strange. I thought I was agreeing with you and supporting your decision to use Vision. At the same time, I was defending my own (and obviously many others') decision to use DP. In other words, I was saying that for MY needs, it is superior, while I understand that for YOUR needs, Vision is superior. I'm really surprised you took it 180 degrees the opposite of how I intended it. But these are forums of words, and words are like that. They get bent and twisted somewhere between my keyboard and your eyes, so it's hard to get it right all the time. Anyway, no offense was intended. DP is what it is, and for some of us that's a great thing. I long ago realized that no DAW is perfect for everyone. It doesn't bother me to hear someone rave about the software they prefer. It only bothers me when they trash DP and they are not being accurate about what they're saying. If they bring up valid points, I've got no problem with that, but often the criticism I hear about DP is really due to not knowing enough about it. Then I feel compelled to say something about it.

In your case, I do think you were laying it on a wee bit thick, since DP is pretty much the king of the mainstream MIDI apps. I think Vision was good, but never better than DP. But you were only giving your opinion; you weren't maligning DP or anything like that.

Since it's such a subjective thing, I have no problem with hearing others opinions--yours included--as long as they don't malign DP with inaccuracies, erroniously stating things that it does or does not do. I don't think you were doing that at all. You were just telling us that for you Vision works best. I was supporting your right to say that, so please don't take it the wrong way.

Shooshie

fokof · Post by **fokof** » Sun May 28, 2006 6:32 am

Spikey Horse wrote:It would only take 100 unicornation members working on 10 pages each for us to make our own .pdf manual.....

Somebody did get through all the Jazz fake books to get them to PDF.
So maybe the DP manual is gonna go through this one day or another.

stickwolf · Post by **stickwolf** » Sun May 28, 2006 7:31 am

fokof wrote:
Spikey Horse wrote:It would only take 100 unicornation members working on 10 pages each for us to make our own .pdf manual.....
Somebody did get through all the Jazz fake books to get them to PDF.
So maybe the DP manual is gonna go through this one day or another.

But you don't need to search the fake books for obscure phrases or words, I mean it might be nice, but that's just not really the point. Just images of the manual isn't the same as a fully text recognized version.

Guitar Gaz · Post by **Guitar Gaz** » Sun May 28, 2006 9:46 am

You were just telling us that for you Vision works best. I was supporting your right to say that, so please don't take it the wrong way.

Shooshie

Apologies - I wasn't really maligning DP - I just get frustrated with some of the ways it works and when I can't find answers in the manual. I have really tried with DP but find that my creativity is stifled by my incompetence in using it - and for now Vision is better for the quick sketching out of ideas. But I do like DP - I just wish it worked better for me in that department - and I realise I can't use Vision for ever. However I will say that DP coupled with Reason is still a powerful tool - maybe I'll find DP5 and the VI's even better.

However - DP can be improved - while using Vision is effective it is like talking an extinct language. But surely others must agree that the Song window is a poor way of doing things, and the the Queue function laughable - why the pause between sequences? Unless I'm doing this wrong that is (and Shooshie will know). So songwriters and users of short linked sequences could be better catered for. I presume this is why Garageband and Live have become popular.

I work full time and have two kids so my time is now limited on the music - so guess my frustration is even more prevalent when I can't work out how to do something in DP that took seconds in Vision. Hence the manual which I still am not keen on. Sorry!

Shooshie · Post by **Shooshie** » Sun May 28, 2006 1:17 pm

Guitar Gaz wrote:
You were just telling us that for you Vision works best. I was supporting your right to say that, so please don't take it the wrong way.

Shooshie
Apologies - I wasn't really maligning DP - I just get frustrated with some of the ways it works and when I can't find answers in the manual. I have really tried with DP but find that my creativity is stifled by my incompetence in using it - and for now Vision is better for the quick sketching out of ideas. But I do like DP - I just wish it worked better for me in that department - and I realise I can't use Vision for ever. However I will say that DP coupled with Reason is still a powerful tool - maybe I'll find DP5 and the VI's even better.

However - DP can be improved - while using Vision is effective it is like talking an extinct language. But surely others must agree that the Song window is a poor way of doing things, and the the Queue function laughable - why the pause between sequences? Unless I'm doing this wrong that is (and Shooshie will know). So songwriters and users of short linked sequences could be better catered for. I presume this is why Garageband and Live have become popular.

I work full time and have two kids so my time is now limited on the music - so guess my frustration is even more prevalent when I can't work out how to do something in DP that took seconds in Vision. Hence the manual which I still am not keen on. Sorry!

The queue function isn't for building songs. It's for chunk playback, as in playing a song list in live concert. One assumes there will be a moment between songs.

The Song window (which is poorly named, since we have to be sure we're understood as not talking about a song, but the "Song Window") is not bad at all. I really don't know why you don't like it, except that Vision did things differently, and you were first acquainted with Vision, rather than DP. If you need the convenience of having all your chunks in one big sequence, it only takes about 4 seconds to convert the "Song" into a new Chunk, with conductor track and all. One just has to get accustomed to the way DP works, and get familiar with multiple ways of doing everything. It's not a problem for me because I'm used to it. But who is to say that I wouldn't be echoing your sentiments if I was doing the same thing you're doing? As I said before, it's really a matter of what works best for you. DP doesn't work best for all people, but for those of us who prefer it, you wouldn't find us switching for anything.

It's all good. Vision, DP, Logic, Cubase... whatever gets the music from your ears to everyone else's. Just give me DP; I like the way it works.

Shooshie

kelldammit · Post by **kelldammit** » Sun May 28, 2006 1:55 pm

suggestion: the best of both worlds. the manual as a text-referenceable help file? scrambled/embedded within the program, to prevent (or at least make more difficult) unauthorized copying?
or even just reference to an online manual @ motu (login verified by s/n)?
heck, just put an expanded manual index into the help file to refer you to specific pages/sections?

though, to be honest, i rather like the hard manual. i can bring it with me and soak stuff in whilst away from any 'puter altogether...