How does one punch on on controller#1 automation?

[Shooshie]

Give me an example of a DAW that edits MIDI as if it were automation.

Now, go to your MIDI CC controls, and apply the edit tools to them. ALL the edit tools. Those aren't workarounds. They're powerful tools.

Fernando, I'm having a hard time understanding you. Are you saying that you've used ALL those edit tools, and that STILL you don't think DP is up to par with other DAWs? What DAW let's you record CC's as if they were automation, erasing that CC without damaging the others? They have to be in their own layer for that to happen, and basically that means you put it in another track. Or you use QuickFilter to edit it. Or you use the Input Filters or View Filters.

Remember, assigning CC7 and CC10 to volume and pan are OPTIONS the user can choose. This is MIDI, where everything is user-definable. How is DP to know what you're using for "automation," and what you're using as MIDI data?

Are you telling me that you've tried all those MIDI reshape tools, and that they just don't work for you?

When a VI learns a MIDI CC# for a particular knob, it responds to it. It does not generate it when you move the virtual, on-screen knob. In other words, you can draw a line of MIDI to control it, but it's not going to send out that CC data when you manually drag the knob with your mouse. If there is a VI that does that, then it is due to the ingenuity of the developer of THAT VI. There's not a DAW that causes the VI's to send out MIDI data when you operate their controls.

That's why I'm saying that you are really confusing automation and MIDI CC#'s. They just don't work the same way. They're not the same stuff. They aren't generated the same way.

To generate continuous MIDI data, you must have hardware (a pedal, a fader, a knob) in the real world to generate that data. The VI doesn't generate it from on-screen controls. It responds to the data generated by your hardware.

Editing that data is very simple in DP. I've devoted a lot of time trying to teach how it's done. If you can think of a better way and get ANY DAW maker to adopt it, then power to you. Again, show me a DAW that already does that. Be sure you're not showing me how Logic can put CC's in different windows in the HyperEdit window, for DP's method is far superior in being able to click on the data type you want, and hit the Quick-Filter to isolate it while always keeping it aligned with the notes. Or use multiple tracks in the Tracks Overview Window. It's not a work-around if it's a fast, viable means of working.

Ok, I have to go, and I can't come back to this discussion today. I'm leaving here with the feeling that you guys aren't really using the tools that are there. Sorry… I'm just calling it as I see it.

Shooshie

[toodamnhip]

As always Shoosh, very thoughtful and generous of you to share such detailed info.
You are correct about what you say in general and you are the guru when it comes to total tool manipulation.

And whether or not other DAWS do this or not,I would still like to see some sort of selectable over ride of CC data that is "already present" such as to trim it or replace it using a mod wheel or any other keyboard controller.

Going in after the fact with TOOLS is valuable, but sometimes a certain pass of CC data has great stuff mixed with stuff you’d like to replace completely. Tools in that scenario are not as good as a hardware inut such as the mod wheel.

Repairs after the 1st pass is a cumbersome process as things stand now when using a mod wheel or controller.

Yes, you can erase a section of data before doing an overdub pass, moving the mod wheel on the subsequent “repair” pass, but you end up with a variety of issues doing this such as doubled CC data at the “edges” of the new repair pass.

If you imagined automating a vocalists volume without the current DP faders, you’d see that losing all the ergonomics of manipulating faders with hard controllers would be a bummer.
It is really no different a need when it comes to CC data.
Though you are comfortable with the edit tools, I doubt you’d want to edit a lead vocal with pencil tools and other tools exclusively. You’d miss your ability to grab a fader.
The same is the case for TODAY’s CC data.

What was once was a minor, occasional need, (manipulating CC data) it has now expanded such that CC data is really used all over the place.
Whether this is done in a V rack or not is not the issue to me, (although there are great benefits to what you have prescribed), it is REAL TIME editablity much in the way a fader operates, this is what is needed in response to the explosion of CC data being used nowadays.
But nonetheless, you are also correct in your statement that we all should use the tools more thoroughly.

[FMiguelez]

Give me an example of a DAW that edits MIDI as if it were automation.

There's none that I know of. And that's exactly what I've been trying to say all along. I want DP to do that.

Fernando, I'm having a hard time understanding you. Are you saying that you've used ALL those edit tools, and that STILL you don't think DP is up to par with other DAWs? What DAW let's you record CC's as if they were automation, erasing that CC without damaging the others? They have to be in their own layer for that to happen, and basically that means you put it in another track. Or you use QuickFilter to edit it. Or you use the Input Filters or View Filters.

Are you telling me that you've tried all those MIDI reshape tools, and that they just don't work for you?

I think we are talking about different things, Shoosh. I have no problem with DP's awesome MIDI editing tools. I use them all constantly, and they rock.
The Reshape tool, together with any of its different flavors is my everyday bread and butter and I could not ask more of them.
I LOVE THEM!



[EDIT]
SHOOSH, WE ARE FINALLY UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHER. THEY KEY WAS IN YOUR OTHER REPLY TO MY CC THREAD.

http://www.motunation.com/forum/viewtop ... 81#p431004

Let me quote you here:

What you seem to want is for Vienna to add automation to their VI interface. They've opted for MIDI control. You want automation control. They would have to add that.

EXACTLY! That is precisely what I want. For this, MOTU could come up with some kind of MIDI Control > to > Automation Control translator in such a way that the end result are CCs that are fully automatable in the same way MIDI volume and pan are (and all the related features).


WHY?
1.- Because I want to be able to selectively disable or enable ANY CC I want with the Automation Setup dialog box. I can’t do that because they are not automation data, but they should BE MADE automation data (or behave like it). This is what I’m insisting MOTU should change or modify.
2.- Because I want to be able to record any CC with my controller using the mixer’s record-automation features, just like if they were 10 or 7. I want to be able to use Touch mode, Latch mode, Range Touch mode, etc.
I want to be able to move fader #3 (wich sends CC 35) and make as easy and intuitive to mess with it as if it were MIDI volume.
3.- Because I want consistency in the way one records and plays ALL CCs (simply pressing the Automation Record button to record them and using the Automation Play button to engage or disengage it).

Let me insist… I know automation data (such as volume and pan) and the other MIDI CCs are different things and behave differently. All I want for them is to be consistent and behave the SAME WAY with the same set of features. You can call this “mega-automation”, if you wish. MOTU could come up with a scheme (translator) that would allow that.

Now that we're on the same page, what do you think now?

Ok, I have to go, and I can't come back to this discussion today. I'm leaving here with the feeling that you guys aren't really using the tools that are there. Sorry… I'm just calling it as I see it.

Oh, I hope you do come back to this thread, because we are speaking the same language finally!

[frankf]

.... Instead, ask them to allow automating VI's in the V-Racks. I think that's what you're asking. Of course, you can keep the VI in the main sequence, not in V-Rack, and you can automate it there if the developer of the VI has made it automatable.
Shooshie

I use buses and Aux tracks for VI returns and everything else in v-racks. I then automate the auxes freely. The volume, pan, etc. for the instruments in the v-racks stay at nominal values and never get touched. So I've no need for automation of VIs at this point, but I can see where others might. DP's bundles system is amazing: a huge matrix audio patch bay. My templates retain bundle and bus names, so I've not had to change much, only tweak to customize as needed. MIDI CCs, including 7 and 10, I use to control nuance.

Here's an example of how I would route a multi output VI, using 2 stereo outs of a Kontakt instance in a v-rack, knowing that the first stereo output of any Instrument gets routed to the Instrument track itself. For this example, I assign a Kontakt Piano patch to outputs 1-2 and a Guitar patch to 3-4 within Kontakt.

1. In the Bundles>buses tab, I create a bus called KT Piano and assign the output of the Kontakt Instrument track in the VI to this bus
2. In the Bundles>Instruments tab, I create a new bus named KT Guitar and assign it to Kontakt 3-4 along the top
3. In the Track Overview window, I create 2 new Aux tracks, one with input bus KT Piano, the other with input bus KT Guitar. These get routed along with all other audio and aux tracks to, usually, a master aux. These 2 auxes get purple for visibility in my template. They can be automated, plug ins can be assigned, and they can be made solo exempt.

I've already created the MIDI tracks for the 2 Kontakt instruments called Piano and Guitar. Their associated aux tracks get positioned right below them. I also group all the Auxes with Show/Hide enabled so it's easy to get them out of sight and reduce clutter in the SE or Mixer.

I find there are a lot of advantages to working with aux tracks for all VI outs and FX returns, but maybe it's residue from working with racks of hardware synths and effects where everything had to be bussed and patched.....with many, many cables and snakes.
Frank

[cuttime]

Boy, I've been following this (these) threads for a while now, and the more I read the more I'm confused. I really don't intend to spar with any heavyweights around here. I just ask these questions: Why not render or freeze the VI tracks at full volume and then use volume automation? Question 2: Would not the volume automation be a higher resolution than MIDI CC7? i.e., wouldn't automation volume avoid the MIDI zipper or stairstepping possibility and allow finer control? 3: Am I all wet?

[frankf]

As to #1, sure you can freeze the track then automate. But if the Instrument Track (VI) is in a v-rack, I think you still need an aux track to freeze. Best way is to test with Instrument in v-rack and when it's not. I'm not in front of DP now so I can't.
Frank

[Steve Steele]

Yeah. I agree. I quit using DP for MIDI for several years (I was only tracking audio) until I got back into orchestral composing. And it does seem like nothing has changed since version 2. That's exactly how it seems. When I started using MIDI again a couple of years ago I was surprised that there had been little change - I think some automation and MIDI effects is about it, right?

Man, you've just admitted that you have not learned anything about DP since version 2. Have you actually USED every tool in the toolbar? Do you know the different modes of editing with the Reshape Tool and Pencil Tool? Here, let me refresh your memory:

First, the toolbar:

Now, the types of lines you can draw with the draw and edit tools:

And now, the edit modes:


I've seen no other DAW that does all that. These tools work on continuous data of any type: MIDI Control Change data (CC), or DP Automation (each in its own layer of a soundbite)

It's important to know that the fader of a MIDI track is actually sending CC#7 to that track. Volume control, then, is what most VI's respond to for… well… Volume. You've probably noticed that MIDI Volume data doesn't edit the same way as Audio Volume data. Audio volume has its own layer, and the control points connect to each other with ramps. MIDI CC's do not connect that way. DP does you a favor, though, and if you take two CC control points that are right next to each other and drag one away, DP will add a ramp of points between them if you are in Line Mode (CC display mode, located in bottom left corner of the MIDI Graphic Edit Window).

Seriously, if you think DP hasn't changed much since version 2, you need to read the manual. Much of version 2 is still in there, but it's a fraction of what's there now, and so many features have been improved, it's almost unbelievable.

Please, don't malign DP with statements about its limitations when you haven't the foggiest idea of what those limitations might be. Someone might believe you and give up before they even learn the app.

DP's MIDI edit features are profoundly easy to use, profoundly powerful, and profoundly accurate. I'm not going to sit here and remain silent while you guys chew up and spit out something you apparently don't even know how to use! It's in the manual, it's in the Tips Sheet, and I have written it countless times in threads like this one. It's also in DP Help, under the Help menu. What does it take to get you to read it and actually learn and use it? I used to think DP was advanced back in version 2. That was the years 1999 through 2001. Then DP3 came out with the first versions of the current tools, and it blew my mind. Now we have better versions of all our tools. For example, the role, slip, slide, and other audio tools are tremendously helpful. It's so nice to be able to grab one soundbite edge and actually move both it and the one next to it, so that you're changing the edit point on both soundbites at the same time. Or just slide the soundbite in the background without changing where its edges are. Learn these features, and you will feel empowered. Do you know about take-comping in the Sequence Editor? How about Pitch editing?

I often automate individual controls in plugins. Waves plugins are completely automatable that way. Some VI's are completely controllable through CC data, such as Wallander's WIVI. Every control in WIVI has MIDI Learn, for easily adding a pedal or fader from your desk to operate that control. That data is MIDI data, and is editable using the tools I've shown you above.

Sorry, but I'm not understanding the problem. I think I create and edit this stuff faster than I can do the same with true automation, but if you think there should be a faster way, then design it and show it to us. I think we have the best of worlds, right now. I've used Logic and spent months learning these same features in Logic. Let me tell you; they do not compare to DP's. Not even a little bit. DP kicks Logic's ass in this department.

Please, guys. I'm asking you to read the manual, take a day off and learn the MIDI drawing and editing features. ALL of them, not just the one you use all the time. Learn how to use percentages, for example. You have to know where the Zero Point is; it's not shown on the screen. You can learn landmarks, though, which quickly identify where you are. Percentage is a subtle thing. Maybe you just want to add by the amount you change the Reshape tool. Straight addition isn't subtle at all.

Then how about learning to use the curves to create vibrato? I can generate an entire phrase of vibrato in about 3 seconds, including the curve type, the skewing of the curve, the amplitude, the initial zero crossing, and the speed of the vibrato. And get this… see all those parts of the vibrato I just mentioned? I create them all -- all together at the same instant -- in one big motion of the cursor, using modification keys as I go. It's instant. (and its in the Tips Sheet post) NO OTHER DAW DOES THAT! (at least none that I've seen or heard of)

Geez, please read the manual, the tips sheet, and the online help. If you still don't understand, then ask us here in the forum. I'll answer if you ask. But you've got to know the difference between MIDI control and automation, and why they work differently, edit differently, and ARE different.

Thanks...
Shooshie

Hey Shooshie - All due respect I think you misunderstood what I meant, and maybe that is my fault for generalizing my response.

I automate Waves everyday. I automate knobs and sliders in VIs all the time. I use the toolbar everyday. I put 8-10 hours a day working with these tools. Although it's not my one of favorite workflows, I do know my way around the MIDI features in DP quite well. But I'm more composer than engineer. Still, I said that I plan on completely reading DP8's manual because I have fallen behind.

However...

My reference to MIDI in DP was not about a lack of features and workflow, but in interface. Logic doesn't have all of those tools, you're right. DP's toolbar and edit tools are pretty amazing. But that's not my complaint about MIDI in DP. MOTU's big announcement several versions ago was that MIDI and audio tracks could sit next together. I was pretty ...underwhelmed with that. I like being able to clearly see MIDI event details in the MIDI track itself, like Logic gives you. That's ALL I'm asking for. An update of the interface.

With all the tools that DP has, why do I have to get a magnifying glass to see a velocity point? Editing velocity in DP isn't horrible, but maybe it's outdated (maybe), Logic is easy on my eyes, some things are smoother to edit (like the velocity tool in Logic) - just one example, and there are quite a few others. But I haven't jumped ship. I chose DP because I thought it had the best design metaphor for the way a DAW should be. I still think DP is the most advanced and feature rich audio/MIDI DAW on the planet. Just needs some design updates in the MIDI area, IMO.

My hope is that DP will enhance the MIDI interface just like they have all other aspects. I just meant it still LOOKS like version 2 (I meant to say 4 anyway).

And my issue with VIs is more about stability, than how to use them with MIDI. Or how DP won't load certain multis back in after a restart probably because of it's own code issues with memory usage. I fully expect DP8 to fix that.

ANyway, that's all...

[frankf]

WHY?
1.- Because I want to be able to selectively disable or enable ANY CC I want with the Automation Setup dialog box. I can’t do that because they are not automation data, but they should BE MADE automation data (or behave like it). This is what I’m insisting MOTU should change or modify.
2.- Because I want to be able to record any CC with my controller using the mixer’s record-automation features, just like if they were 10 or 7. I want to be able to use Touch mode, Latch mode, Range Touch mode, etc.
I want to be able to move fader #3 (wich sends CC 35) and make as easy and intuitive to mess with it as if it were MIDI volume.
3.- Because I want consistency in the way one records and plays ALL CCs (simply pressing the Automation Record button to record them and using the Automation Play button to engage or disengage it).

I would use these features, in some cases, if they were extended to MIDI Tracks. I record MIDI CCs, key switches, etc using a hardware fader or pedal while recording the MIDI part, then edit ala Shooshie but certainly without his depth of knowledge. Since I use auxes for every VI return, I automate these for overall volume, pan mute (and can use Touch mode as necessary).

My point of view is that a MIDI track represents a musician's performance with nuance represented by MIDI CCs. My goal is to get the best performance possible, then edit/tweak it after I've achieved this. I then use the Aux return for that MIDI performance to automate, insert plugs, send to reverbs, etc. treating the track as a recorded real instrument track, with the benefit of being able at any time to go back to the MIDI track and adjust the performance if need be.

So, for example, if I'm recording a MIDI oboe part for a mock up, I will record multiple takes, punch in, using CCs until I get the best performance I can ( not being an oboe player). I'll then edit and automate the aux return for the mock up mix - just as I will do when I bring in a musician to record the final.

Of course, "back in the day", I didn't have to create mock ups and do all this work. I'd just shock my clients at the session
Frank

[Shooshie]

I can understand the desire to fully control a VI, and not merely the return, yet I don't think of it as automation, just control. You're playing a VI with MIDI. Your performance includes all the faders, pedals, breath control, or whatever that cause the VI to play and/or change its parameters. (Tone, timbre, volume, overtone structure, EQ, response, decay, and another 100-odd parameters that can change while performing)

Merely changing volume on the audio return from a V-Rack doesn't change the timbre or attack time as happens when playing louder or softer, but again… we're not talking about "changing volume" at that point. We're talking about playing the instrument.

But people like to edit their performance. Maybe not everyone is comfortable with shaping lines to do that. Maybe they would rather use a "touch" fader to edit each facet of the performance. I'm gathering that Fernando and 2DamHip would like to be able to do that the same as they edit channel strip automation. To be honest, that never occurred to me as a possibility, and though I'm trying to be open minded about it, I still don't get it. I've been editing MIDI performances for so long that it's just part of my workflow: play the part and get it close to perfect on the first take, then switch to MIDI Graphic Editor and do a quick touch up of anything that got away from me or didn't respond properly. (usually because of performing with latency)

Frank, you and I work pretty much alike, other than my having quit using window sets. But I use return Auxes for every VI, when applicable, and I never have felt a need for better automation. I've got massive control of the performance, and I have automation of the audio return. I can see that it would be nice if there were a true automation bridge to the V-Rack. I use plugins inside V-Racks, and it would be nice to automate them, too. But it's never been a real problem. It's not something that slows me down or causes me worry.

When talking about this stuff, it's always hard to differentiate between a deficiency in someone's knowledge and a deficiency in DP. Any mistaken assumption means you're wasting everyone's time with a mistaken response. So, this has been a very confusing thread, and I apologize to anyone whose time I have wasted with misunderstandings. I'm just doing the best I can. But seriously, I get such a high from using DP, especially the more complicated my sequence gets, that I rarely think of deficiencies in DP. It's all good to me, and I still find myself smiling involuntarily when watching DP turn something complicated into something simple. I don't mean to have a pollyanna attitude; I'm just genuinely happy to work in DP. It'll do anything I want.

Still, I'm trying to understand the need for editing CC's as if they were automation: touch, latch, trim, and so forth. I can visualize that, but I can't imagine explaining it to MOTU in a way that would make them want to jump on this. 2dam and Nando, Feel free to keep explaining what you're saying; maybe at some point I'll see not merely its possibility but a real need for it.

Shoosh

[jloeb]

MIDI track window-->Upper right window menu-->Checkable per-track option called "Overwrite and Smooth MIDI Data on Record"

No, it doesn't exist. If it did, it would solve everyone's issues.

If it's unchecked:
MIDI automation behaves as it does now, which is to say that hardware motion generates discrete data events and those raw events are recorded.

If it's checked:
1) any overdub in which a MIDI channel generates new data erases any previously generated data on that same MIDI channel within the overdub timerange;
2) Post-overdub, DP calculates spline solutions at the edges of the overdub timerange and smooths any discontinuity by generating MIDI events conforming to those splines; mathematically similar to what DP already does with audio pitch editing.

That last point in particular is clarifying: When DP works with audio pitch, inherent to the editing concept is a plausible, musical outcome, with no abrupt transitions or discontinuities. This is because the purpose of the edit is to produce a plausible "modeled" monophonic vocal or instrument part, and smoothing gross discontinuities is a necessary part of maintaining that plausibility.

Modern VIs use CC data in this way more than they have before: LASS, Vienna, etc. use CC data as proxies for variation in instrument timbre, not just raw volume change. When using CC in that context, we ideally want DP to engage in that smart "modeling" behavior it uses when it edits pitch.

The inclusion of the checkable option above, or something like it, would resolve that issue in a flexible manner.

[FMiguelez]

I'm gathering that Fernando and 2DamHip would like to be able to do that the same as they edit channel strip automation. To be honest, that never occurred to me as a possibility, and though I'm trying to be open minded about it, I still don't get it. I've been editing MIDI performances for so long that it's just part of my workflow: play the part and get it close to perfect on the first take, then switch to MIDI Graphic Editor and do a quick touch up of anything that got away from me or didn't respond properly. (usually because of performing with latency)

Well, that's one of the things I'd like to do... to be able to record and tweak CC overdubs with my keyboard controller using its faders and knobs and pots. IOW, I want to use ANY of the mixer's record-automation features (such as Touch and Range Latch).

That's why I bought that controller in the first place! To avoid messing with lines and "vectors" manually in the GE or SE windows. I mean, doing it with the mouse is doable, of course. That's why we have a plethora of tools to edit those lines, but I want to be able to do that from my controller using the record-automation features. ALL of them.

When talking about this stuff, it's always hard to differentiate between a deficiency in someone's knowledge and a deficiency in DP.

Shoosh, you've read my posts throughout the years. I use DP every single day. I use all the editing tools DP has to offer on a daily basis. Heck, you know me... I thought you'd assume I have mastered all these tools and techniques looooong ago...

If I didn't know all that I wouldn't dare suggesting ways I feel would vastly improve on what we already have.

Still, I'm trying to understand the need for editing CC's as if they were automation: touch, latch, trim, and so forth. I can visualize that, but I can't imagine explaining it to MOTU in a way that would make them want to jump on this. 2dam and Nando, Feel free to keep explaining what you're saying; maybe at some point I'll see not merely its possibility but a real need for it.

Ok.
If you tell me how I could do any of the following, as easily, quickly and intuitively as one would do it with regular MIDI Volume or Pan, then I promise I will shut up.

To avoid repeating myself, I'll quote instead:

1.- Because I want to be able to temporarily and selectively disable or enable ANY CC I want with the Automation Setup dialog box.
This is SO important with a VI such as Vienna Instruments.

2.- Because I want to be able to record any CC with my controller using the mixer’s record-automation features, just like if they were 10 or 7. I want to be able to use Touch mode, Latch mode, Range Touch mode, etc.
I want to be able to move fader #3 (wich sends CC 35) and make as easy and intuitive to mess with it as if it were MIDI volume.

[EDIT]
2a.- Because I want to use any of the advanced mixer's record-automation features to perfect, overdub and tweak my CCs performances with my Novation controller.

3.- Because I want consistency in the way one records and plays ALL CCs (simply pressing the Automation Record button to record them and using the Automation Play button to engage or disengage it).

Shoosh, let me save you some time. I know of all the workarounds to deal with that with DP's current state (that's what I've been doing for months).
So when you realize you must do X, Y and Z to do something as simple as temporarily disabling CC#45, then I hope you'll understand me (checking a simple box as opposed to n number of workaround steps).

Can you think of a way to deal with all my above points that is as easy as if those CCs were fully automatable as if they were # 7?

Oh, and let me add that points 2 and 2a don't work even with MIDI Volume or MIDI Pan at the moment. I think that must be a bug.

[Shooshie]

To do this easily, if I'm in need of keeping my CC lines editable, I put each in its own track (CONTROL-COMMAND-S), and put those tracks in a folder with the main MIDI track. It doesn't get any faster than that. I've done that for more than 20 years (minus the folders). It feels perfectly normal to me.

It's MIDI, not automation. DP has excellent tools for manual editing of CC's. But if you want to keep playing it in, use tracks. I have the following devices that can send lots of CC data in real time:

Kurzweil 2600: 16 MIDI faders, two ribbon controllers, two wheels
Behringer UMA25S: 8 fast knobs, two wheels, 1 fader
Roland FC300: 2 continuous pedals, lots of switches
Yamaha WX5: breath control, pitch transducer, assignable mod wheel

I capture these in MIDI tracks as desired, if desired. It's very easy to separate CC's from a single track and spread them into multiple tracks (double click in MIDI Graphic Editor to select all of one type, then use Tracks Overview to drag into empty track), and even easier to put them back. (Tracks Overview, drag to destination)

I'm repeating myself now, and have been for a while, so I'll bow out of the conversation. I'm sorry I just can't see MIDI data as automation data. It's continuous MIDI. It works like MIDI, behaves like MIDI, and you approach it like MIDI. That's the end of it for me. I use this stuff as much as you do, if not more, and I've been using it for a long, long time. I guess I just learned to do it the way it actually works, and never was under the illusion that it might work differently, because it was not a problem. I'm not saying you shouldn't pursue it. Just that I can't generate any enthusiasm for it, because I've never perceived the need for it, except for when DP wouldn't edit CC's properly, which wasn't too many versions ago.

Shooshie

[Steve Steele]

To do this easily, if I'm in need of keeping my CC lines editable, I put each in its own track (CONTROL-COMMAND-S), and put those tracks in a folder with the main MIDI track. It doesn't get any faster than that. I've done that for more than 20 years (minus the folders). It feels perfectly normal to me.

Do you sometimes, always, or never use multi-record, depending on if you need certain CCs separated but want to play them at the same time?

[Steve Steele]

To do this easily, if I'm in need of keeping my CC lines editable, I put each in its own track (CONTROL-COMMAND-S), and put those tracks in a folder with the main MIDI track. It doesn't get any faster than that. I've done that for more than 20 years (minus the folders). It feels perfectly normal to me.

Also, do you have workflow, or certain tricks for managing takes in the different tracks in your scenario? Is there a fast way to manage takes on the separate tracks without using the mouse, is what I guess Im asking, or just anything unique you do?

Thanks

[FMiguelez]

To do this easily, if I'm in need of keeping my CC lines editable, I put each in its own track (CONTROL-COMMAND-S), and put those tracks in a folder with the main MIDI track. It doesn't get any faster than that. I've done that for more than 20 years (minus the folders). It feels perfectly normal to me.

So, if I understand you correctly, if you use 70 regular MIDI tracks for orchestral instruments, each with 10 different CCs, your suggestion would be to add 700 tracks just to manage the CCs????

Sorry, my friend. But that doesn't seem very effective to me. It's actually adding a whole order of magnitude of unnecessary complication (with or without track folders).
And not only that... Even then, that wouldn't address the issue of not being able to use any of the awesome mixer's record-automation features.
Actually, adding seven hundred tracks only addresses the first of my four points, and at an extremely high price!

Also, I don't understand why you resist the idea so much. All I'm saying is MOTU could add some kind of converter/translator to deal with some of the issues I've mentioned throughout the thread more effectively. Some kind of MIDI Control to Automation Control converter.

We can deal with them as things are now. Granted. But do you not think there is room for vast improvement in that area about the 4 issues I mentioned above in my list?

Like I said, times have changed. Things that used to be effective in the past are not so hot for these modern VIs that demand sophisticated CC usage.

I was really hoping you would answer my 4 points/questions from above, or that you would at least concede that certain improvements need to be made to make DP even more powerful in this respect...