MOTUnation.com

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:So you can impress your clients that you're daw is as good as Cubase. Ha ha.

Oh perfect, so it's sort of like the amp that goes to 11?

Or the 5 identical copies of the same mix but #3 has the best sound or changing the waveform to blue makes it warmer.

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:Or the 5 identical copies of the same mix but #3 has the best sound or changing the waveform to blue makes it warmer.

No, no, no, no, no! Blue makes it COOLER. And everyone wants their mix to be cool.

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:So you can impress your clients that you're daw is as good as Cubase. Ha ha.

Ha! Good one. But there's a sad hint of truth in that joke.

At least DP doesn't have that silly Chord Assistant feature that Cubase recently got. That's truly embarrassing.

What a ripoff! No chord generator????

It might as well be. It's a chord "suggester".

http://youtu.be/R2134foPkRs

Shooshie wrote: Anyway, I've tried out and used briefly over a dozen DAWs, including the one of which we shall not speak. (R•••••) I feel like that's why I can say what I'm saying. It's all personal opinion, of course, but that's what we deal in here. I've learned how to get a window open from Finder to recording in about a minute or less (10-15 seconds, if DP is already open), so there is no time/inspiration factor that makes this single MegaTrack more appealing to me. We all find ways to do what we want to do. I don't think that adding this track changes that any.

Sorry if it seemed brash it's just that you stated in the past that you thought Logic was good for looping, for people who work that way, which implied you didn't really work like that. I think Logic works well in a lot of ways, to a degree I find the Arrange page a bit easier to digest than the bouncing you do in DP between the TO and SE windows for the same features.

... and for the record I find almost nothing about the single MIDI/VI track that appealing. Even in other DAWs you don't record audio to that track, and other DAWs don't have Chunks and the V-Rack concept, so how does that gel with a single MIDI/VI track? I'm not an engineer but it doesn't sound to me like an easy thing, at this point if you decide you can move a VI to a V-Rack, and somewhat cludgingly move it back to a track, with a single MIDI/VI track that would be impossible or a nightmare to code for the MOTU guys.

I believe my opinions are just that: opinions.

True, it's just that I don't see other DAWs as the enemy, and I worked in Logic for about 7 years, it's a great DAW, I just missed the aforementioned Chunks concept in DP. Plus Performer was my first MIDI sequencer in 86 and again Digital Performer in 96, so I'm somewhat attached to DP. I guess the main thing that gets me when people here knock other DAWs is that it's usually in the same way that people knock DP, because it does something in a way that's not the way they learned how to do things. So for instance guy x uses Cubase and is used to object oriented MIDI, DP's way seems 'inferior', when it's not, in object oriented DAWs it's usually a PITA to see all objects on a track as one long MIDI file etc. The opposite is true in reverse. Like I mentioned the only drawback in Logic at least to VI's hosting a single MIDI channel is that program change messages have to be recorded on a separate MIDI track. I only use two VI's that are useful as multi instruments, Kontakt and MachFive. The rest reside on one track. But again to me this is a tiny insignificant thing compared to other MIDI issues, specifically note ranges. The guy who sold me Digital Performer in 96 switched to Cubase in about 06 because he wanted to be able to use a few VI's spread over his controller with separate ranges. I know Cubase, Logic, Live etc. can do this, it's not a deal breaker for me, but it's probably the most glaring MIDI omission. The way DP handles MIDI and VI's isn't.

I actually had a pretty good idea for adding the MegaTrack in one of my posts up there somewhere. One big problem is the paradox created in the Tracks Overview Window. But if the track was to show up there as a FOLDER, containing three tracks — Instrument, MIDI, and Audio — then that would solve that paradox. There are others, but I won't go back into all that.

You can assign a MIDI and VI track to a particular plug in, to a folder when you create it right now, I'm sure you know that. I prefer to add audio tracks late in the game, so I'm not invested in taking it further myself.

To counter a specific point of yours, if you need more room in your Tracks Overview, put the MIDI in a folder and the Audio in a folder, and the instruments in the V-Rack. (and yes instruments DO pre-render in a V-Rack.) You have just cut ⅔ of your problem out of the picture.

OK, I remember a thread where Magic Dave said that Instruments in a V-Rack do not pre render. Considering the relationship V-Racks have to tracks if they do pre-render that's quite a feet, especially if you haven't yet routed an audio track to the V-Racked VI in question. I would love to be wrong on this.

nightwatch wrote:It might as well be. It's a chord "suggester".

http://youtu.be/R2134foPkRs

I just watched a bunch of Cubase videos. There's a bunch of weird stuff out there, masquerading as cool tools. I'd describe it, but I wouldn't know where to start. I'm sure a lot of people probably really like that stuff. Most of what I saw, I can do in DP with other tools, but I'm not sure I'd want to.

Here. Let me just link you to one of them. If you don't have 22 minutes to devote to it all, just skip up to 14:41. That's where he takes a mechanically created drum track and turns it into something that sounds like a beat-box performer. There's something sorta cool about it, but then there's a point where he's obviously blown away with what came out, and he says with pride bursting from his voice, "I WROTE that! I should use it in a composition sometime."

This whole world of the DAW is a strange one, and I can see how people who write different kinds of music may prefer different DAWs. I still think that people who like to do it the old way of just putting down on "paper" the things you hear in your head would prefer Digital Performer.

Ok, I'm going to post something that is totally unrelated to anything we've talked about.

Mike Mower's Concerto for Flute. Movement 1.

The purpose of this link is to reestablish a sense of what can be done with just plain old tools like score paper and pencil, but aided greatly by using DP instead. None of this is random. I normally severely dislike concert bands, even those that disguise themselves with the words "wind orchestra," but the center of focus in this one is the girl playing solo flute. The band is pretty good, and will suffice as accompaniment, but the girl playing flute is very talented, and the composer knocked this one out of the park.

No, it's not my kind of music, though I've done my share of it. (a friend sent me the link) But it's real, it's well done, and it's a product of minds making music, and when you do something like this in a DAW, you learn the difference between Digital Performer and Logic, Cubase, Reaper, Studio 1, Acid, Ableton Live, Garageband, and Pro Tools. Writing from the mind, if you'll indulge me to call it that, is something that grows better and better with experience and training. Having an ear is not optional, it's essential. You may not know the name of the chord you're about to put on paper (or your screen), but you damn well know what it sounds like and how to play it. DP's tools are perfect for people with that kind of ability, and yet they also enable lesser talents (like me) to write above their technical level. So, the ear is the most important thing. DP provides you with that ear-to-hand connection that may slow you down with score paper where you find yourself erasing mistakes.

So, understand, I'm not talking about a particular style of music. I used that flute example because it's NOT my style. But it represents something I COULD do if I were inspired to do that. The Cubase example represents something I would not do for any reason, really. It's fine that the guy did it, and that he likes it. I get that. I also get that lots of people would really like that. But I'm not one of them.

Last week I arranged three pieces. The first I did on score paper. The next two I did in DP and Sibelius. Why? Because I remembered that score paper is terribly slow when you want to change the key and transpose an entire arrangement you just finished. Of course, DP and Sibelius don't always transpose the way humans would, so I have to go through and check for enharmonic spellings that I don't like. If "enharmonic spellings" is something you don't understand, you may not be as dependent on DP and Sibelius as I am.

If I sound highbrow here, you're missing my point that DP is a tool that is optimized for people who write music of the mind. People who might use score paper if they had no DAW. Or people who figure it out on guitar first, then they lay it out in DP and start adding to it. I'm not saying that a flute concerto is better than a beat box simulator, though I certainly prefer the former. I also like a whole lot of other things that don't involve flutes or orchestras, wind or otherwise. I guess what I'm saying is that my continued reliance on DP, and my rejection of other DAWs, is because of how I make music of any kind. I think it, and I use DP as my electronic score pad. It doesn't "do what I tell it to," it stays out of the way and lets ME do what I do. It facilitates quickly changing anything I put into it, correcting mistakes, trying out other ways, changing the harmony, rhythm, phrasing, dynamics... anything I want. But in the end, when I say "I wrote that," I mean that I wrote it.

Some days I do Bach. Some days, Jobim. Some days, i do Shooshie, and I might get very experimental then. But on those days when I do it "old school," i really need DP to be there for me. I've tried to be diplomatic and neutral in saying this. If I've alienated anyone, you have my sincere apology, because that's not my purpose. I'm trying to help people understand the difference, to understand why DP really is the only choice for me, and why I do not want it to swing the direction of other DAWs. I'm not alone. There are thousands of people like me. We're passionate about what we do; there just isn't another kind of life for us. DP was made for many kinds of musicians, yet it they really nailed it for people like me.

Am I making sense? If so, you might understand why I am reluctant to follow the crowd. I'm doing something using skills and techniques that go back hundreds of years, updated for the present day, and I find those skills to be less fluid on other DAWs. There needs to be at least one DAW for us. DP is it.

shoosh

Michael Canavan wrote:

To counter a specific point of yours, if you need more room in your Tracks Overview, put the MIDI in a folder and the Audio in a folder, and the instruments in the V-Rack. (and yes instruments DO pre-render in a V-Rack.) You have just cut ⅔ of your problem out of the picture.

OK, I remember a thread where Magic Dave said that Instruments in a V-Rack do not pre render. Considering the relationship V-Racks have to tracks if they do pre-render that's quite a feet, especially if you haven't yet routed an audio track to the V-Racked VI in question. I would love to be wrong on this.

I wonder if Magic Dave meant that PLUGINS on V-Racks instrument tracks do not pre-render. Maybe they can't, because the instrument hasn't played the track yet, and there's no audio to pre-render. But I'm pretty sure the instruments DO pre-render. I just tested this in DP a moment ago, and consistently the performance monitor showed less activity when 5 VSL interfaces and 3 Wallander Instrument interfaces were closed in pre-render mode. Open the windows, and the Performance monitor went up about 30%. Close them, and it dropped back down. I did it over and over to be sure I wasn't imagining it. Further, if I closed the windows and immediately started playback, I got nothing, or else I got maybe 1 violin. That's because the rest had not finished pre-rendering. Stop and give it a moment, and then they all played. Open the windows and all instrument play instantly.

Magic Dave is usually right, but I'm thinking he must have meant something else in this case. I'm pretty sure that instruments in a V-Rack do pre-render. Their plugins may not. Maybe plugins cause something entirely different to happen, and maybe Dave was trying to explain that. But Instruments pre-render.

If I'm wrong, then how do we explain what I just tested and found to happen consistently several times in a row? Pre-rendering is the only thing that explains the performance monitor raising when the instrument windows are open, and lowering when the windows close. I can make a movie of this if necessary; the difference in the performance monitor is clear and obvious. Having to wait for all the instruments to show up in the audio is another clear and obvious clue. They ARE pre-rendering; no question about it.

especially if you haven't yet routed an audio track to the V-Racked VI in question.

Instruments will not load or allow a MIDI assignment until there is an audio track connected to them.

Shooshie

Michael Canavan wrote: The main advantage of this is most people use a single MIDI channel for a single VI, so instead of two tracks in your arrangement pages (Track Editor), you have one. Use 14 VI's without using V-Racks, and you have 28 tracks in your TO already without audio tracks even! Why would you want to forgo using V-Racks? well for one they don't pre-render so VI's use way more CPU in a V-Rack.

I don't know if most people use a single MIDI channel for a single VI but I certainly do not unless the the VI is not multi channel. In a multi sequence chunk project V-racks are essential to memory, load times and project management. I've experimented very little with Logic, but from what I saw, one can only load 1 sequence per file, which really negates the main benefit of v-racks. In my DP VI v-racks, VIs remain in the v-rack with volume at 0db and are returned to the mixer and all edit windows via named busses and aux tracks which can be automated. Shooshie's earlier post on v-racks, as far as I'm concerned, is definitive on their value. I'd also add there are commands for adding an instrument track with associated MIDI track(s), moving a VI to a v-rack. Makes add a VI easy. Templates make this all even simpler.

For anyone who has spent time in a control room with a hardware mixer, maybe tape, external hardware effects and synths and patching systems, DP's bussing architecture (this is what this thread is about basically) and GUI that we work from is familiar, transparent, integrated and deep. Every instrument, recorded audio or virtual (that includes MIDI) has it's own track; audio is bussed to the mixer directly or patched via a bus elsewhere; MIDI from MIDI tracks is routed to VIs (in a v-rack in my case) or external devices; effects like reverb reside in v-racks and accesses by sends; the audio returns from these sound sources (which in the case of a VI like Kontakt or Mach5 are many) are returned to DP via DP's bundles ( super charged patch bay) where they are bussed (patched) to the Mixer via aux tracks. This is a solid, time tested architecture for a DAW based studio, one that's been around for many years.

Personally, I don't want a VI hidden behind a MIDI track and don't need to see an instrument track in any edit window. I like it parked in a v-rack out of sight just like a synth module was parked in an e-rack before VIs, Core Audio and Core MIDI existed. If it's the case that all the other DAWs combine the MIDI and instrument tracks into one and because in DP it is so easy to create an instrument track with as many MIDI tracks as one wants, in a folder or not, I'd say the other DAWs are behind the curve in flexibility and ease of use here. MOTU should not waste the effort trying to implement this.

Nothing personal, just a strong opinion.





Frank Ferrucci

Geez... let's just tack anything and everything onto DP because the other guys do it that way. I don't care anymore. But I'm actually thankful that I believe someone at MOTU has the big picture in mind, because really, when you try to be all things to all people it can often result in disaster. If they added that option, great... all well and good. As the forum owner, I'm happy any time there's one less thread that starts off with "[DAW Name] does it this way... why can't I do it the same way in DP?" It would maybe help the discussion move on to how to best use what we have.

Yeah... it creates more tracks than usual... hence Track Folders... hence a command to create an assigned MIDI track at the same time as you add the VI, and enclose in a folder if you wish in the process. But again, whatever to appease the "XYZ does it this way" sentiment, I suppose.

I find it so much more flexible to have MIDI tracks separate from the VI track. What if I want to target multiple MIDI tracks to the same VI at some point in the process? What if I like to have a MIDI track for one section of a song and another MIDI track for another? If I can still have that routing flexibility that would be nice. Tell me, do the apps that have the all-in-one MIDI/VI track have a feature comparable to Takes? That's perhaps not relevant, but the question just occurred to me.

James Steele wrote: I find it so much more flexible to have MIDI tracks separate from the VI track. What if I want to target multiple MIDI tracks to the same VI at some point in the process? What if I like to have a MIDI track for one section of a song and another MIDI track for another? If I can still have that routing flexibility that would be nice. Tell me, do the apps that have the all-in-one MIDI/VI track have a feature comparable to Takes? That's perhaps not relevant, but the question just occurred to me.

Haven't used Logic in too long to tell you, but in Live you can route any MIDI track to a VI/MIDI track, so for instance you could have different MIDI FX on different tracks etc. It really isn't that much different than the way DP does it, just that it's track based instead of sending to the VI whether it's in a track or in a V-Rack like in DP.

By Takes do you mean Mix takes?

I mean Takes as in the Tracks. You can have multiple takes within a MIDI or Audio track. So you can have multiple MIDI tracks in another DAW that can be targeted to a single instance of a VI?

Yeah, I can't vouch for others but Live allows you to have as many MIDI tracks as you want all pointed at a single non-multi-instrument VI. Live is the only DAW I've used that has bussing that's more flexible than DP. Live IMO is like a hardcore combination of a sampler and a sequencer, with modern pitch/time stuff included. Automation is very useful for instance in terms of as an FX device, but for mixing a song down it's rudimentary, only one 'type' in it's arrangement window.
I'd totally forgotten that DP allowed multiple MID takes as well as audio, very cool. Live doesn't have any sort of takes, comping in Live is a PITA as well, that DAW is not for mix down IMO. I use it for initial ideas if I'm in the mood for it's workflow, but I always mix down in DP.

James Steele wrote:So you can have multiple MIDI tracks in another DAW that can be targeted to a single instance of a VI?

Yes, Logic can route tracks with MIDI data in them to any VI on any channel, just like DP.

I think the differences between DP and other DAWs are being greatly exaggerated. The differences are pretty much all in the way the information is displayed. DP shows us items in a way that correspond more closely to the way signals are routed.

If you are used to working this way, Logic can be confusing because of the way it displays things, not because of the way it works. But if you are used to Apple's design approach of not showing you what's going on under the hood, it's not a problem.