MOTUnation.com

My template has two V-racks with MachFive already in place and routed to respective aux tracks. I make one more for Synthmaster (along with the aux track) and one more for MX4 (if I'm working in 32-bit). I don't know what sounds I'm gonna load into M5, but I know I'm going to be using something, and I also know I usually go to a second instance of M5 (I don't like to use more than 5 or 6 parts in any given instance of M5).

In addition I have a couple of stereo audio tracks in place, and at least one MIDI track. I can get started very quickly and I don't have to do routine stuff over and over. I love the flexibility in this setup; it was difficult working in DP until I understood all the routing and aux busses, etc. It only took me twenty years or so to figure it out.

Mike E

Totally agree about the template thing. It can and does tend to lead people into similar sounding instrumentation some people want that because they're always trying to fake true orchestral sounds. Traditional composers basically had the same template as well (same instrument set) so in a sense they had a template. I suspect I work like MM691. I want my imagination to dictate the sound. My job then is to work my butt off to make my imagination come to life and that might mean abandoning traditional acoustic models. But enough of that.

As far as workflow goes, again, my job is to take the sound I hear in my mind and make it real. I don't care if I need lanes, or a VI and MIDI track or a big button or two dozen little buttons. All I care about is being able to arrive at the desired end. And getting the best product I'm capable of.

All that said, based on comments on this board I d/l Main Stage last night. I don't have a laptop and use hardware synths in performance, but I often find myself wanting more variety and thought I'd try it out. Heck, $30????

It's pretty cool and initially I thought the stock sounds were really good. That's about as big button as it gets but in context to how and why I'd use it, very appropriate. So much so that my next purchase will certainly be a laptop for my live gigs.

jloeb wrote:

cowtothesky wrote:

Killahurts wrote:As far as the MIDI/VI thing, I like DP's approach. I just wish I could select some MIDI tracks, and freeze or merge the virtual instruments they play, into audio tracks.. whether they're in tracks or in a V-Rack. No complex routing, no manually setting up busses, no having to group MIDI and VI tracks together in order to select them, and no manually disabling the MIDI/VI after the audio is rendered. What a chore!

It should be, "I'm ready to render this MIDI I've selected, playing whatever instrument it plays, in its track or V-Rack, to audio- and here's the button that does it!"

Amen.

I totally agree with you on the freezing tracks thing. Simplify it and remove steps.

The problem with implementing a "Big easy button that removes complexity" thing is that it always reduces flexibility. At the end of the day, that also ultimately reduces clarity because it creates more exceptions. At least, I've never seen otherwise.

The reason we hear such a "Its so easy! / But how the heck do I...?" dichotomy for DAWs like Logic is precisely this.

DP's design is principle-driven and as fenceless as possible. Understand the principle of organization, and you get it. That's why I love it.

Want one-click freezing? You can pretty much have it in DP. Set up Track folders as standard practice with your VIs. Drop associated MIDI tracks in that folder as you create them or just save the setup as a template. Highlight folder, shift-ctrl-F. Frozen.

Myself, I don't even bother to do this since I find it unmentionably trivial to command-click the VI and whatever MIDI track/s I want to freeze on that pass and hit shift-ctrl-F (and I frequently don't want all of them to render on a single pass so that I can effect them distinctly). So fast, so flexible. And consistent, using simple principles that let you build the environment you want.

YMMV.

for releasing DP9 does not vary, however.

+1000

I don't think I've ever seen it put so succinctly, but this is exactly what's behind most of my posts on this subject. I'm going to steal this line: "DP's design is principle-driven and as fenceless as possible."

Shooshie

menright wrote:I love the flexibility in this setup; it was difficult working in DP until I understood all the routing and aux busses, etc. It only took me twenty years or so to figure it out.

Remember that MOTU was figuring out DP for all those 20 years, too, and still is doing so, and we are constantly learning the new changes, making our work easier, doing a makeover on our projects and workflows.

It would be great if we could have known THEN what we know now, and could have just built a complete, fantastic DAW, and that we had the computing power to run it. This has truly been an evolution in hardware, software, design philosophy, working parameters, and even the purpose and marketing of music. Nothing is the same as it was 30 years ago, unless you are writing strictly for a symphony orchestra on paper with pen (only). It has been a fascinating, frustrating privilege to observe and be a part of this transition, with elements of amazement and ecstasy and [more] elements of hell.

People entering the biz today, buying their first DAW, then complaining about how hard it is, might think otherwise if they had to take all the steps some of us have taken over the past 30 years. When they run to what appears to be easy (Logic, Garageband, others), they might see it entirely differently if they had been watching as all these types of DAWs were developing, when we'd get our hopes up, only to see them dashed on unexpected complications when a new "easy" design proved complicated and difficult when you wanted anything other than the status quo. Some designs are powerful. Some are simplified. Some are dumbed down. Each bears its price. The powerful requires learning up-front. Simplified usually loses flexibility and requires learning later to make up for it, if it's possible. Dumbed-down leaves us frustrated without options later.

There's a reason why I continue with DP, and why each step of its evolution bears me out. It's what jloeb said above, a few posts up: DP's design is principle-driven and as fenceless as possible. Requires learning up front, but you can do it in stages. Doesn't take long to get it up and running, but to learn how to do a film score is going to take you a while. To do it easily takes a LOT of learning. But the info is all there. It's something anyone can do if they take some time.

Shooshie

My template only includes a given number of audio/stereo/MIDI tracks, empty instrument tracks in the V-Rack routed to their respective busses and specific windows position (2 monitors...). Like you my plugins are rarely the same from one project to another. But it's still a big time saver

Mine is a variation of that, somewhat large and generic with placeholders but no VIs or plugins in place. I then add and delete to match my initial opinion of what I will need. If I need to add more later, that's quick and easy.

I find this much faster than creating a track listing from scratch.

I don't do templates, but I have Clippings for external instruments and the like. DP9 with it's ability to assign multiple instruments and tracks at once will make this even easier.

mikehalloran wrote:

My template only includes a given number of audio/stereo/MIDI tracks, empty instrument tracks in the V-Rack routed to their respective busses and specific windows position (2 monitors...). Like you my plugins are rarely the same from one project to another. But it's still a big time saver

Mine is a variation of that, somewhat large and generic with placeholders but no VIs or plugins in place. I then add and delete to match my initial opinion of what I will need. If I need to add more later, that's quick and easy.

I find this much faster than creating a track listing from scratch.

Most of my projects start with the Sequence and V-Racks chunks of another project. I've done it that way since I started using Performer. I'll think of a sequence that most resembles what I'm about to work on, open it, and save it as a new project. Then delete the data, and start recording/arranging/composing. I may keep some of the conductor track if I can think of a sequence with the same time signatures and rough tempos that I need. As I need something new, it's usually a track that is similar to an existing track, so select the existing track and type Command-Control-S, and I've got my new track. If I didn't have to name it, it would be so quick I'd not even seem to pause my workflow.

But I don't have an actual template. After a period years ago when templates didn't work too well, I soured on the idea, and haven't used them much since. Occasionally... but not often.

V-Racks are great, BTW, because after a while you tend to have the instrument combinations you use the most already loaded into certain V-Racks. I keep those in the Clippings file, and I can load V-Racks of my choice easily without any need of going through the process of creating and loading instruments. When I'm done tracking, I just turn off the V-Racks and I don't have to wait for them to load when I open the project.

Shooshie

Hmmm... I think this phrase "true instrument track" seems a bit biased. What is "true?" Maybe a better word would be "integrated" instrument track or "standalone" or something like that? The implication is that this is the "right" way to do it... the "true" way to do it. But frankly, with my personal history of DAWs going back to Cakewalk 1.0 on DOS, the combined MIDI/VI track seems completely weird to me.

Again we seem to arrive at that great compromise: "Sure... add that if we can still have the old way." That said, I can't help sense some danger in attempting to make a DAW that is all things to all users.

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:Totally agree about the template thing. It can and does tend to lead people into similar sounding instrumentation some people want that because they're always trying to fake true orchestral sounds. Traditional composers basically had the same template as well (same instrument set) so in a sense they had a template. I suspect I work like MM691. I want my imagination to dictate the sound. My job then is to work my butt off to make my imagination come to life and that might mean abandoning traditional acoustic models. But enough of that.

As far as workflow goes, again, my job is to take the sound I hear in my mind and make it real. I don't care if I need lanes, or a VI and MIDI track or a big button or two dozen little buttons. All I care about is being able to arrive at the desired end. And getting the best product I'm capable of.

Perfectly said and you're right - that's how I work. I take each piece as it comes and work from there without preconceptions as to the sound. Sometimes that takes a lot of work and I don't mind but at the same time I don't want the tools I use to stand in my way either. I don't mind learning the tools (that's never been an issue for me) so don't say I'm looking for an easy way out.

Who accused you of an easy out? The easy out is also the most boring for the listener, IMO. Then again, so many want to be "the next John Williams, Danny Elfman, or (fill in the blank)" and forget these guys are originals with their own ideas. THAT is what makes them unique. I'd much rather follow my own path and not hang on to someone else's coattails or fill some producers pre-conceived notion based on those coattails.

There are plenty of examples. The score for the Seinfeld series comes to mind. The composer had to fight for the slap bass sound, which was rejected at first. It's perfect and distinctive. Had he (the composer) started with a pre determined ensemble, he might never have arrived at that sound.

This is really a better discussion for the composing area, but unfortunately I can't split the thread. Maybe James or Shoosie can?

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:Who accused you of an easy out? The easy out is also the most boring for the listener, IMO. Then again, so many want to be "the next John Williams, Danny Elfman, or (fill in the blank)" and forget these guys are originals with their own ideas. THAT is what makes them unique. I'd much rather follow my own path and not hang on to someone else's coattails or fill some producers pre-conceived notion based on those coattails.

There are plenty of examples. The score for the Seinfeld series comes to mind. The composer had to fight for the slap bass sound, which was rejected at first. It's perfect and distinctive. Had he (the composer) started with a pre determined ensemble, he might never have arrived at that sound.

This is really a better discussion for the composing area, but unfortunately I can't split the thread. Maybe James or Shoosie can?

I didn't say you or anyone accused me of wanting an easy way out. I just wanted to head-off any accusations of me not taking the time to work within DP's idiosyncracies. I've seen it far too many times here where someone asks for a way of doing something that runs contrary to what others don't seem to have a problem with and is essentially told 'well that's the way is is, I don't have a problem with it so therefore the problem doesn't exist. I offer for example the thread where the merits of absolute versus relative grid are hotly debated.

I agree the thread has gotten somewhat off the DP9 intro at NAMM but it happens.

For what I understand the new DP9 have the futures to open a MIDI track and assign a VI output? I mean, you don't have to open two tracks ( MIDI and instrument track ). Right?

dado wrote:For what I understand the new DP9 have the futures to open a MIDI track and assign a VI output? I mean, you don't have to open two tracks ( MIDI and instrument track ). Right?

Haven't heard that, but it doesn't mean it's not happening. I have my doubts, though.

Shooshie wrote:

dado wrote:For what I understand the new DP9 have the futures to open a MIDI track and assign a VI output? I mean, you don't have to open two tracks ( MIDI and instrument track ). Right?

Haven't heard that, but it doesn't mean it's not happening. I have my doubts, though.

Maybe I don't understand but, the new futures Create Track is not what I mean?

Shooshie wrote:

dado wrote:For what I understand the new DP9 have the futures to open a MIDI track and assign a VI output? I mean, you don't have to open two tracks ( MIDI and instrument track ). Right?

Haven't heard that, but it doesn't mean it's not happening. I have my doubts, though.

The way I understand it from as it was explained is in the new Add tracks you can create the Instrument track and as many MIDI tracks as one needs and have them automatically assigned to the vi MIDI inputs. But there would still be separate MIDI and Instrument tracks it would seem; no single Instrument track that hosts both the vi and MIDI.

BTW - has anybody noticed that Magic Dave's hair went from a nice full head of dark hair to an almost total grey since NAMM 2014?