MOTUnation.com

Jamie wrote:

Robert Randolph wrote:You can do it either way. If you want the video I linked, it explains it pretty well.

You can also do the 'quantize soundbites' method that simply slices and moves the regions around, keeping them in relative phase.

In that video it showed quantizing beats within bites, and I couldn't tell if that stretched the audio or not, it wasn't explained that in depth.

What I do in PT is chop the drum tracks based on kick/snare using Beat Detective, quantize audio regions, then fill gaps. I've seen that people figured out how to do this in R••••• with some scripting, but I'm not a fan of a daw that lets me accidentally put MIDI notes on my aux tracks... That said, this is a very important feature for me to use, it's probably the one that I could not live without now that I've used it.

You can quantize the position of soundbites , rather than the beats in the soundbites, if you want. That does exactly what you're suggesting.

The quantize "beats within soundbites" does to the stretching, quantizing "soundbites" just moves the soundbites.

so it does stretch, that's good to know.

What about filling gaps?

Jamie wrote:so it does stretch, that's good to know.

Yes, but it doesn't seem like that's what you're looking for, so just in case.. it can do both methods. Stretching and quantizing the region location. (I know I've repeated this, just making sure we're on the same page).

What about filling gaps?

Audio->Smooth Audio Edits

Room tone?? I might be sold right there. Gotta play with workflow for a week or two, but this might be a good enough reason to make the jump real. MOTU seems much more stable than AVID for the long haul, and once I learn to do MIDI like the days of yore, I'll have a good starting place. If it weren't for LPX drummer, I'd be clearing some HDD space right now...

DP and Reason, just like Berklee said I would be using 10 years ago... Funny feeling when you fight something for so long and then realize they were probably right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jamie wrote:...I dislike that the MIDI track is separate from the Instrument track.

We hear that a lot and "get it."

I think of the instrument tracks as the "audio" end of the work, and as a traditional composer, I like having separate areas for music (MIDI) and instruments/technical audio concerns, etc.

On another level, I also tend to think of all the various tracks and windows simply as "access points" for me to develop a project workflow with a lot of flexibility.

It's important to keep in mind that with separate instrument and MIDI tracks, it is possible to have v-racks, which is really great if your using DP's exclusive feature of multiple sequences in each project. I would hate having to open and close projects, load VIs, etc. with every cue or section of a work. Even changing sequences it is a royal PITA w/o v-racks if you've got a lot of VIs. V-racks make changing sequences (or chunks - how I HATE that word!) instantaneous. So easy!

Also, keeping the instrument and its tracks in FOLDERS helps to keep things organized, and getting familiar with the Track Selector goes a long way towards an amazing workflow.

I don't know how "customizable" PT is, but I do know that I never liked its MIDI implementation or the one sequence per project aspects. I also don't like Avid very much, but they did sell off M-Audio, so they get marks for that... LOL

MLC, I understand the concept of VRacks and how it's useful for TV/Film composers, and when I was learning DP before, that's the work I was doing. That kind of work is going away, for me, it seems, so I'm getting more into recording and bands. Maybe compose instrumentals for an R&B singer, etc. so that's why for me, VRacks are not so invaluable. Maybe for an EP where I'm using large Albion libraries in each song, sure, but I digress.

Organization, adapting workflow, all that, it happens with lots of DAWs. What nobody else has is the EXCLUSIVE feature of disallowing VIs on MIDI tracks, if you know what I mean. PT allows both ways of working, and feels like DP but with MIDI regions. That part I like. The half added Sibelius "integration" I do not like.

As for selling off M-Audio, I think they had little choice financially, and given the choice, they'd have kept it. I'll keep my trusty Ensoniq VFX thank you, DIN works fine.

As for chunks, let's agree to call separate sequences "sequences" - maybe MOTU can be petitioned?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jamie wrote: As for chunks, let's agree to call separate sequences "sequences" - maybe MOTU can be petitioned?

It'll never work.

So then maybe PT is better for you?

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:

Jamie wrote: As for chunks, let's agree to call separate sequences "sequences" - maybe MOTU can be petitioned?

It'll never work.

So then maybe PT is better for you?

Or change V-Racks to Floaters.

Jamie wrote:

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:

Jamie wrote: As for chunks, let's agree to call separate sequences "sequences" - maybe MOTU can be petitioned?

It'll never work.

So then maybe PT is better for you?

Or change V-Racks to Floaters.

Floaters?

MLC , I think this might be one for you to answer...

Jamie wrote:I understand how it works, I dislike that the MIDI track is separate from the Instrument track. I like the idea that it *can* be, for multi-timbral Kontakt for example, but it's not quick, and the fact that there are no MIDI bites (clips, regions, whatever). This makes some of my work much more difficult.

This is one of DP's strengths, in my opinion. They gave you a number of options for MIDI that are harder to get in other apps.

The one-track MIDI/Instrument/Audio is terrible for me. I just don't think that way or work that way. DP knows that a lot of us old MIDI pros like keeping our tracks separate. There's a MIDI track, which powers an instrument. (Instrument isn't a track; it's an instrument! Put it in the V-Rack and it's IDENTICAL to using rack gear in principle, only with all the advantages of having it all in the box.) Then there's the audio return, just as you would do if you were using MIDI instruments in a rack. You receive audio from an instrument. It's the natural order of things, and it makes sense. You get to keep your MIDI tracks together, and your audio tracks together. It's natural.

IMO, DP's MIDI is the most powerful, best editing, and logical to use of any DAW. Of course, it depends on what DAW you grew up with. I've been using Performer and Digital Performer for 30 years. It was natural from the very beginning, because it was based on current studio operations. It was easy to segue from studio hardware to Performer software, because that's just the way we thought.

Logic was a niche app before Apple got it. It took patience to learn, and many people who did learn it came right back to Performer/DP. I observed it several times back then, but never liked what I saw. It was a non-starter for me, and I was glad to have DP. Pro Tools didn't even HAVE MIDI. I haven't used it since they became proud of their MIDI, so I have no idea what you're coming from there.

It would be a tremendous mistake to think that you're stepping DOWN to DP. All these apps can produce hit records. In fact, DP has a menu item that says "Record Hits." ( Inside joke there, but it really does. It's just not THAT kind of hits) Also, they all have Grammies under their belts. Several of our regulars have earned Grammey awards. Given you have talent, it's all comes down to how you prefer to work. Until you try one out, you probably are not capable of saying you prefer this over that without a little prevarication, because you don't really KNOW! I stuck with Logic for about a year after buying Logic Studio, and finally decided it just wasn't worth it. Even when I learned the "best" way to do things, they still didn't compare to what I could do with DP, and believe me, I tried. I had lengthy conversations with seasoned Logic users, who finally convinced me that I was using the right methods, as good as it gets, but it still wasn't what I needed for the way I work. I had to drop it.

DP is my DAW for life now. I'm not changing for anyone, anything. It's the best of the DAWs, IMO, and anyone who doesn't see that probably doesn't expect to go very deep with this stuff.

I'd write more, and with more finesse, but I'm in a raging hurry right now. I do hope you find what you want. It doesn't have to be DP. Use what works for you. But don't say that one or two features you haven't really tried are not good enough. It's a matter of learning how to work with DP.

DP is the oldest DAW on the market today, possibly excepting some niche market apps like MAX, which may or may not be older. It has been completely revamped a few times, if not more, and it continues to play "feature wars" with its competitors, each adopting the new features of the other when it can. Over the years MOTU has learned so much about making great tools. They still have to please people who "don't get it" about the way we work in DP, so they add the occasional Logic feature to compensate. That's ok, and I support it. But I don't necessarily use them.

Ok... gotta go.

Shooshie

Thanks for that bit of philosophy. I get it.

I grew up with staff paper and a pencil. Graduated to Sibelius 2, then AVID bought (ruined) it and I moved to Finale. I learned MIDI basics from Reason 2.5, which, like you say, is like what it was like to have a rack of gear back in 2004! It was wonderful. And then I could print stems once I was happy with my sequences, and put them in DP for mixing with with recording of my cello, vocals, bass, etc.

That said, I'm happy to continue working that way, except the world embraced Kontakt and libraries that can't be opened in Reason, and Propellerhead seem to have no desire to compete with those kinds of features. So I'm moving on. Recording bands in Reason (or record) is a massive mistake anyway.

I recorded a drummer in reason 7, then Propellerhead advised me to bounce out each track separately, switch to take 2, bounce again, take 3, etc etc because there's no group editing for comps. Did that for 2 hours to get the audio into PT where it could be edited properly.

I want to like DP enough to do that instead. Mostly because I hate AVID and I'm afraid of depending on them professionally. I don't have any Grammys, but I still depend on it for my livelihood.

Once I learn how to quickly do multiple takes on multitracked instruments, how to do multitrack comps easily, and audio chop to quantized and fill, I think I'll be set. The thing about MIDI, I can get over that. The part about the TO window not having MIDI objects? That's absurd. What if I want to copy the first verse MIDI to the 2nd and 3rd verses for a piano part? In EVERY OTHER DAW this is straight forward option+drag. Fly parts around. Easy. Selection based editing should still be in the sequence editor, sure. But there IS a use for object based editing as well. Something that eMagic picked up and gave to everyone else (including Propellerhead).



Sorry if my posts feel jumbled, I'm on my phone and can't see my own preceding paragraphs to make sure it reads coherently. Hope this all makes sense to someone!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jamie wrote: It's true, this is what gave me the idea - the AVID DUC forum has so many people talking about DP (which is never mentioned places like GS or KVR for top google hits...) When you join a forum and notice many of the discussions are about leaving the forum (and the company) your feet get sudden chills...

I understand how it works, I dislike that the MIDI track is separate from the Instrument track. I like the idea that it *can* be, for multi-timbral Kontakt for example, but it's not quick, and the fact that there are no MIDI bites (clips, regions, whatever). This makes some of my work much more difficult.

I'm one of those DUC'ers that talks up DP whenever the subject of other-than-PT daw s/w comes up because it never gets mentioned. Oh sure you'll see plenty of mentions for Logic, Cubendo, etc. but DP gets no props. Soemtimes I'll get comments that some have tried it in the past and didn't like it (probably DP6 users).

Like you I'm not nuts about DP's instrument tracks being a vi track without MIDI. I like that PT allows both ways of doing it. Even in a multi-timbral situation in PT I still would use an instrument track to hold the vi and the MIDI because it saves me a track which in PT is vital because of the artificial track limits they put on things. Maybe this is why DP does it like it does - there's no artificial limit to the number of tracks save for what the computer can handle. So the thing becomes in DP - why not have it both ways? The way it is now for the old guard and the combined way for those of us who'd prefer that way? DP is the only daw I know of that an instrument track does not also handle MIDI.

I'm moving from PT because of the debacle that is PT12. So many issues it isn't even funny and a lot of what was announced at the various trade shows that was supposed to be in PT12 still hasn't appeared. Cloud collaboration is still in beta I believe; track freeze - MIA - I could go on.

I'm late to this thread cuz I'm on vacation and haven't checked in for a while. I'm on my wife's lap top and she wants to check her e-mail, so I'll keep it short.

I'm not a MIDI guy (my MIDI use is probably 0.1% of what I do). I use DP primarily for tracking/editing/mixing, and I love it. I've used PT and although there are some things I really like about it (being able to switch to absolute grid comes to mind), I prefer DP. I'll let the MIDI experts fill you in on that stuff, but as far as audio is concerned, IMO DP wins hands down. But, you probably won't agree at first. DP is much deeper than it initially appears and many users who try it out for a while don't see that. It's those deep dark corners of the program that you only learn with lots of man hours that really kick your work flow into high gear. I've been using it for years and I'm still learning little tricks. So yes, DP is great for audio. OK, I'll get off my soap box. Get the demo!!

Phil

IMO, the only limitations in DP's MIDI implementation is the imagination and/or knowledge of the operator. There are certainly other ways of organizing things. I do a lot of MIDI editing and have never had a problem in that regard with DP.

DP's MIDI controls outrun PT by a mile. But I also prefer DP's audio editing. Here's a little story:

Way back when I turned pro, I was running Performer synched to DA-88s, button of my clients (a guy who was spending a lot of money at my shop) kept up this rhythmic chant: "When are ya gonna get ProooTools? I can't work here without ProooTools? When are ya gonna get ProooTools?" And so on.

So I got ProTools, the old Session 8 hardware, and sold my last DA-88. I liked the ITB integration, I liked seeing the "industry standard" splash screen... I just didn't like the way I had to address PT. (I'm sure it's vastly improved from those days.)

I plugged along for over a year until I needed more tracks and realized that Digidesign was going to gouge my eyes out on an upgrade path. The concept of "native" audio was just showing up, the MOTU boxes were brand new, and I had a conversation with a real MI expert who said that he would bet on the native systems to be the Cool Guy Setup in the medium to long run. So I went with Digital Performer 1.7 and a 2408.

Within a month, I was editing lip-synch audio with this same client looking over my shoulder, and flying through the work at breakneck speed... virtually anticipating my client's requests. After an hour of this, he suddenly exclaimed, "Hot damn, son! Since you got rid of ProTools, YOU'RE A MACHINE!"

DP suits my headspace, for sure, and that's part of it. But MOTU doesn't take a back seat to AVID in any way. DP is the DAW for composers who do everything else, too.