DP's way of handling Instrument tracks and MIDI

[dewdman42]

DP provides lots of ways to do many, many things. I suspect that, at some point, a "single track" option for MIDI/VI could be included. But sometimes, like more than a few, I like "old school thinking". It's familiar. It's comfortable.

Just sayin'.

don't fight progress. Just sayin'

For example, I often use MIDI volume automation to enhance dynamics in individual string parts served by a single instantiation of Kontakt. Then I'll automate overall string section dynamics on the VI track using the VI channel fader. Of course there are ways to accommodate this in the single track approach using lanes, but DP's split approach works really well for me in a hands-on, organic way.

All of that can be done with all of the DAW's that support instrument tracks, so you are presenting a red herring argument as if having instrument tracks will prevent you from being able to do that.

I don't think anyone here is arguing against an option in DP that allows users an approach they feel best suits their workflow, or arguing for removal of the current approach. So let's not get testy about it.

cheers!

[Michael Canavan]

[REDACTED BY ADMIN]

In terms of "which MIDI region" As it stands in an instrument with only one MIDI track you get a fader for MIDI cc7 volume and of course the VI volume on the VI track. So right away DP users are confronted with the lack of MIDI CC7 available or a completely different experience than other DAWs.

That's why personally if I were to be lord ruler over the direction that theoretically DP goes in, I would like them to go their own way. A MIDI software instrument track that holds automation as well as MIDI CCs', make the V-Rack the king of the hill here where software instruments live, especially now that V-Racks show up in Mackie etc. control surface hardware.

Just dive all of us into the Chunks and V-Racks experience. I suppose if you wanted to you could just do it all in a single Sequence Chunk, but it wouldn't really take much (I say this with the confidence of someone who hasn't coded anything really ), to make V-Racks and Chunks unbeatably powerful; instruments in V-racks able to be parameter/track automated; instrument parameter + MIDI tracks; and since we're coding DP12 here, alias FX plug ins in Sequence Chunks that talk to Aux tracks in V-racks hosting the actual plug in, sort of like VEP plug ins for the V-Rack. IMO it's already a modular type system and these changes would extend that drastically.

[dewdman42]

[REDACTED BY ADMIN]

In terms of "which MIDI region" As it stands in an instrument with only one MIDI track

have to stop you right there. By what rule does it say there can only be one MIDI track? I haven't suggested that, and I have not suggested that instrument tracks would force that situation. and people here are freaking out that somehow if we have instrument tracks they will lose that ability.....but I don't think anyone has suggested we should do away with that, other daw's didn't do away with that...and I don't understand why this argument is being made to try to block DP from gaining instrument tracks?

That's why personally if I were to be lord ruler over the direction that theoretically DP goes in, I would like them to go their own way. A MIDI software instrument track that holds automation as well as MIDI CCs',

100% yes absolutely. But why stop there, not only hold the plugin automation but also have the audio fader and receive the audio from the instrument to mix it there?

make the V-Rack the king of the hill here where software instruments live, especially now that V-Racks show up in Mackie etc. control surface hardware.

Now if you want to compare the above to say, LogicPro and Cubase..that is how they are setup already. LogicPro puts instruments in a mixer channel but creates track(s)..which are instrument tracks....(and kind of like MIDI tracks because they can hold MIDI data), but they are more than a DP MIDI track because they can also hold plugin parameter automation and even receive the audio. LogicPro already imposes a sequence-Vrrack separation automatically its just hidden under the covers so most people don't realize that in LogicPro...an instrument track is really one or more MIDI tracks pointing to an instrument channel.

V-Racks are totally awesome and I personally think they should be the default mode..but the main reason they can't always be the only mode is because we cannot currently automate plugin and track parameters of V-Rack. The entirely of this discussion has to include not only the ability to put MIDI data directly onto instrument tracks...but also to enable a sequence "instrument track" to be a thin proxy that basically points to a yonder V-Rack and is able to completely automate it as if it were local in the sequence.'

and oh wait...before people start freaking out again demanding that we don't change anything....what I just said in the previous paragraph can be simply one option. If you don't want to use V-Racks..you don't have to!

[Michael Canavan]

[REDACTED BY ADMIN]

I think it's more like how do we get MIDI instrument tracks without changing DP into the other DAWs? That's why I'm all about adding track automation to MIDI instrument tracks, but keeping instruments as a separate entity, that for most peoples convenience can live in a V-Rack.

Now if you want to compare the above to say, LogicPro and Cubase..that is how they are setup already. LogicPro puts instruments in a mixer channel but creates track(s)..which are instrument tracks....(and kind of like MIDI tracks because they can hold MIDI data), but they are more than a DP MIDI track because they can also hold plugin parameter automation and even receive the audio. LogicPro already imposes a sequence-Vrrack separation automatically its just hidden under the covers so most people don't realize that in LogicPro...an instrument track is really one or more MIDI tracks pointing to an instrument channel.

V-Racks are totally awesome and I personally think they should be the default mode..but the main reason they can't always be the only mode is because we cannot currently automate plugin and track parameters of V-Rack. The entirely of this discussion has to include not only the ability to put MIDI data directly onto instrument tracks...but also to enable a sequence "instrument track" to be a thin proxy that basically points to a yonder V-Rack and is able to completely automate it as if it were local in the sequence.

Yeah that's the main gist of what I would do if I owned MOTU, spend a f-bomb ton of money on coding DP to allow parameter automation of V-Racked instruments and FX, make V-Racks like a built in version of VEP in more ways than it is now. Honestly I can't imagine that MOTU aren't attempting this at some level? They have some of the longest running users around, so they have to be careful not to break peoples old workflows, but even then a lot of them rarely update, plenty of users still on 9 on the Facebook page.

To me this is the better solution than just adding MIDI to VI tracks. I mean I would appreciate the screen real estate back, but I would rather see DP jump into areas that other DAWs can't really do, and that involves the already implemented V-Racks and Chunks getting some needed VI oriented improvements. I used to use the Song window all the time when I ran an E6400 Ultra with DP2.7 in 2000, but VI's bog down the Song Window, unless everything is in a V-Rack, which my dream version of DP would accommodate. I'm a simple man, I liked the Song window for quickly knocking around ideas for arrangements etc.

[dewdman42]

part of the confusion is that V-Rack tracks are even called "tracks". There is no time domain there...so they really should be called "channels".

Sequence track-->V-Rack channel

In the above...the source track could hold MIDI. It (the sequence track) could and should hold V-Rack Channel automation as well as plugin automation for any plugins that are hosted there. \

There is also no reason why that source sequence track couldn't hold the actual audio mixer strip where the audio comes from the instrument. It could mean the instrument is hosted right there in the Sequence track..or it could be that the instrument is hosted in the remote V-Rack..either way...that one source track could have the MIDI data...and it could also have the audio mixer fader and everything related to the audio that is coming back from the instrument regardless of whether its local in the sequence or remote in the V-Rack. There is no need for an additional instrument track in the sequence.

If you want want to use extra MIDI tracks that can also feed into the instrument plugin..regardless of whether its in the sequence or the V-Rack...that is certainly also possible...all the various combinations of chunks and V-Racks, etc...it can all remain totally possible...but what should not be always necessary is to always have to have a separate MIDI track and instrument track, particularly when a V-rack is not being used.

I don't know why the argument keeps coming up that somehow this kind of improvement to DP would be somehow mess everything up for everyone that is used to the way DP works now, it can totally be done so that nobody loses anything!!!

[Michael Canavan]

What controls volume then. An instrument plug in like Diva for instance, it can be assigned MIDI CC7 for MIDI volume control of the main track, some VI's do this automatically, so the separate MIDI track becomes a pre master instrument volume fader, CC volume control. With a dedicated MIDI channel for a VI like in other DAWs you generally are controlling the mixer strip/track volume the VI is hosted on. This is why I would prefer a MOTU type solution like allowing for MIDI instrument tracks that can control parameter automation and MIDI CC's but still keep a separate VI that more or less would make total sense to host in a V-Rack (now that V-Racks can be controlled via control surfaces like regular mixer channels).

Otherwise you get a situation where everyone who normally used CC7 for volume automation in instrument tracks or V-Racked instruments isn't seeing any real difference when this change happens. They still have to open a regular vanilla MIDI track and point it to the VI to get their old CC7 volume automation workflow.

I don't mind a scenario at all like this that forces a workflow oriented towards the strength of DP. It reminds me of the arguments people gave about Push being too Session View oriented, and they used Ableton Live only in the Arrangement View. I could never figure out why anyone would use Live without using the Session View?? it's 100% the strongest argument for using Live beyond Maybe the Max integration.

Plus I'm all for integration. I would love to see MOTU concentrate on refining Chunks, V-Racks, Clips, Song window etc. into an even more smooth workflow.

[dewdman42]

CC7 is just another MIDI parameter that can be automated with or without instrument tracks. if you want a dedicated CC7 fader there are several different ways to have one in DP, including consoles and extra MIDI tracks too if you want why not. Most people do not mix their tracks using CC7, they mix using the audio faders in the mixer... Nobody is saying you can't have that and also bring full on instrument tracks into DP for a much more sensible consolidated workflow in 90% of cases. You don't have to use it if you don't want to.

[stubbsonic]

Tracks are containers.

Some want fewer containers.

[Michael Canavan]

CC7 is just another MIDI parameter that can be automated with or without instrument tracks. if you want a dedicated CC7 fader there are several different ways to have one in DP, including consoles and extra MIDI tracks too if you want why not. Most people do not mix their tracks using CC7, they mix using the audio faders in the mixer... Nobody is saying you can't have that and also bring full on instrument tracks into DP for a much more sensible consolidated workflow in 90% of cases. You don't have to use it if you don't want to.

One of the reasons most people using other DAWs don't use cc7 as a VI volume control is because it isn't exposed in VI tracks, in DAWs like Logic, Live etc. You have to set up a separate MIDI track to expose it, which you would have to do if DP adopted these other DAWs method of hosting MIDI on the VI track.
It's not an advantage per say I suppose, but it would present a challenge to people using DP who are used to MIDI tracks controlling the cc 7 for the MIDI channel it points at in the VI in the sense that they would not gain anything from the introduction of a single track with the VI and a MIDI channel.

Anyway this is all theoretical, MOTU will do what MOTU wants to do with DP, we can argue the finer points of how DP should be set up for VI's in the future, but in fact it's not anything that we directly control other than sending in suggestions to MOTU about it.

In my theoretical best case scenario DP gets MIDI instrument tracks (as well as the universal MIDI tracks it has now) that can access parameter automation for the VI it points at, and VI's themselves can live in a V-rack, either being ignored by people or used to control the overall volume of the tracks pointed at it. It's a go your own way solution that falls in line with DP's general approach.

[bayswater]

I have no problem with DP adding an option to manage VI tracks like Logic does it but I doubt I’d ever use it.

DP’s process might take a little more effort for simple configurations, although the new Create Tracks command simplifies things. In fact, it seems to me that the way you set up VIs and the associated MIDI tracks in the Create Tracks window is as about as far as things are likely to go when it comes to making DP like Logic.

And having lots of tracks? Why is that an issue with folders, hidden tracks, presets, screen sets, etc.?

Logic does make it easier for a simple set up. But only situations where you have one track of MIDI regions playing one instance of a VI. After that, you need guys like Eli and Edgar to produce tutorials on how to do things like multiple outs, and answer questions on how to know how many instances of a VI are actually running, or how to stop all MIDI events triggering all VIs. Or you have to futz around with the Environment page, or pretend the Environment page is not necessary, and get into elaborate work arounds. All fascinating stuff the first time through, but a PITA after that.

With DP, once you know the basics of track creation and Bundles, and grasp the idea of signal flow, you can do anything without a lot of extra thinking. I guess that’s old school — based on the big console with external racks and patch bays, but that’s OK with me. I have a signal flow diagram on the wall and its a big help.