Opinions for most wanted improvements...

[TiUser]

Hi folks.

Also no one here really knows when Brad will show up again I think it's worth figuring out the most wanted improvements in Cantabile.

I also think despite the demand for a Cantabile VST version not all resources should be put in this, resulting in hardly any further development of the existing Cantabile host software...

When looking back over discussion here I see some hot spots.

*) Patch selection
- optional patch selector based on midi bank and patch numbers
- optional patch selector based on vst banks (*.fxb)
- option to force vst patch load (*.fxp) instead of vst bank numbers
- option to force vst banks load on session load
- option to load Cakewalk *.ins files for patch selection

*) Multi timbral plugin handling
- subsession based midi channel mapping, alike rack transpose and zones
(allowing seamless indirect sound selection in a preloaded multitimbral sound set)
- subsession based midi filters
- subsession based midi routing
- audio routing / mix controls

*) Asio and master bus configurations.
- options to implicitly and explicitly save and reload configurations
- the input and output channel assignments should be made per rack and not per plugin
- every plugin that is loaded in a rack should automatically connect its input to the output of the previous plugin (or to the assigned input of the rack, in case it is the first plugin), and its output should automatically connect to the input of the next plugin in the rack (or to the assigned output of the rack, in case it is the last plugin)


*) Media player improvements
- probably the most complete summary actually being done:
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=296990

*) Midi device virtualization
- global mapping between physical midi ports and virtual device names
- global mapping of physical controls to virtual control names

*) external midi hw handling
- treating external hw like virtual instrument racks
- controller assignment map
- simplified setup

*) VST realtime functions
- controller assignment to vst editor morph slider

*) Analysis function
- VST plugin audio latency report



Cantabile VST version

...discussion open for additional points... :wink

[humphrey]

Hi TiUser,

nice idea. Here's my hitlist:

- improved sub session features => midi-routing and midi-filters individually storable for each sub-session as this would lead to very short load times for sample-based vstis (if there is enough RAM available that can be allocated)

- virtualized midi-ins (and outs?) => having available virtual midi-channeld to be mapped to different physical ins, probably same for Cc - channels

- simplyfied midi-operations (probably optional) => free mapping is a great feature but to my mind in many cases some more rudimentary features would be useful under the aspect of simplicity

- comfortable audio routing for multitimbral vstis => automatically generating a set of controls (volume, pan, eff-sends) for every additional stereo-out of a vsti

- comfortable midi-out dialog for external hardware-instruments => having available a midi-out-channel with program-change and audio-input, probably with the possibility to import soundlists, etc. by xml-file


regards, humphrey

[TiUser]

- comfortable midi-out dialog for external hardware-instruments => having available a midi-out-channel with program-change and audio-input, probably with the possibility to import soundlists, etc. by xml-file

What do you think if this would appear as a dedicated Cantabile hw rack?

Basically you can already do this when you insert a plugin that sends midi program numbers... Via master bus you can route the hw synth audio to the rack audio input. With the rack's "send to" - "Midi target" you can send midi to an external midi port too... using rack zone, transpose and midi filters.

So it's less functionality missing here than probably thought... some additional gui wizard and a virtual VST slot entry with bank/program number patch selector would do the trick...


Maybe a similar concept could be used for multitimbral plugins as this would be available for multitimbral hw modules then too...

[humphrey]

Hi TiUser,

you described exactly what I was thinking of: the concept of a special - let's say template - for HW (and yes: I'm aware that probably every part of this template is still available in cantabile).

My idea isn't that new - I have to confess it was strongly influenced by the way steinberg realised this in Cubase (btw: also forte as a competitor of cantabile has advanced possibilities concerning this aspect).

Nevertheless I could imagine it would be a really cool concept to put a sort of abstraction layer into cantabile. And absolutely right: this concept could be transfered to many other problems (f.e. multitimbral instruments as you described, virtual channels, midi routing templates,...???). So think of a host with all the nice possibilities and a bunch of templates that fit 90% of the common user wishes. Further on think of the possibility to generate templates by yourself - specially tweeked for your everyday wishes. This in short words is what I'm thinking of.

To be serious: the main problems in hosts often are not missing functionalities but a lack of simplicity. I think this is one of the aspects where developers of DAW-software (but also of software in general) should lay much more stress on.

only my 2 cents,

regards, humphrey

P.S.: one small idea I forgot (I mentioned it in some posting anywhere before): a small identifier to show if a midi filter was used in a rack or instrument would be great.

[TiUser]

True... that what I often call "under the hood features" and "better gui usability"

On the other hand if it's just like generic macros the "problem" continues when one wants to make changes the same easy way... That leads to another level where you either get locked to the macro to keep it editable in the way you created it or throwing it away with edits, coming back to the "complex" original flow model...

Cantabile is in many regards quite straight forward referring to complexity. It's the old story that users want complexity but also want to manage this "easy" which is kind of impossible in some ways.

I often think we miss a batch tool that scans all sessions we want and then make changes to all of them in one for instance replacing an old plugin with a new one or changing a rack with certain content by another... sounds good, but if you think twice it is a complex thing for both, the programmer and the user...

But how to overcome this? Some products have the answer with a more static structure. This seems to be one approach in forte... finding out the 80% most used features and workflow and imprinting that in stone... again users have to decide if that's the level of complexity they expect or can deal with...

In some regards I find a DAW "simpler" to do than a live host. Some difficult things simply don't occur - like live reconfiguration. Imagine that in a DAW... expecting "subsessions" to instantly and glitch free remove old and add new tracks with new plugins and patches while the whole thing is still playing... not impossible I guess, but who supports this in it's DAW? Now take a closer look at Cantabile... you can add a new media clip while another one is playing! You can add racks and VSTs while you are playing others! Maybe you never tried this but it shows how much thought has already been put in the current flow... still there are things for live use that should be "optimized"... that's a hercules task for a "small" project.

That's all tough. When you add the economical view - well, I ask myself how all the effort adjusts. Cantabile is a niche product even if it bundles with this piano package with the name I have forgotten... Same with forte which was shipped with Open Labs. Now OL has it's own host and forte a hard time...

I had some private "negotiations" with Brad concerning certain features and know too well he will only add something that is pure logic and will fit the current "Cantabile philosophy". So if we do any "weak" suggestions they will not ever make it into the program.

I also know some users want a Cantabile VST but I am not sure which opinion I personally have here. Basically I find it a good idea but practically I know that the time spent on this will be missing for the host software maintenance and development... maybe the announcement for a Cantabile VST wasn't a wise move looking at Brads limited resources - especially for maintenance and improvements for the main host program.

[dluther]

Strange that you would include my all-time most wanted feature in Cantabile as the last one: treating external HW like virtual instruments. It would be so nice to have just an editable list of parameters that could be assigned to CC/RPN/NRPN values, and then be able to assigned those to external controllers or events.

[TiUser]

That's a misunderstanding.

I have explicitly not numbered the points in the list but just put an asterisk * Not sure who else than Brad can prioritize these...

So any order in this list - and the color which just indicates other fellows addons - does not mean any preferences. It's a work in progress list where I try to sublimate new points made in any posts here.

When I understand your suggestion right is that what I once called "controller virtualization" ? ...means creating a global list of controls that can be used "virtually" while you can assign these to real controllers on devices?

Or do you probably think of a set of controller values to be sent on patch changes - associated to a patch, patch number, etc... in such a "hw" rack? BTW, this would be useful for softsynths too, when I think of tweaking GM sound modules were patches are often tweaked that way on the fly...

[dluther]

That's a misunderstanding.

When I understand your suggestion right is that what I once called "controller virtualization" ? ...means creating a global list of controls that can be used "virtually" while you can assign these to real controllers on devices?

Or do you probably think of a set of controller values to be sent on patch changes - associated to a patch, patch number, etc... in such a "hw" rack? BTW, this would be useful for softsynths too, when I think of tweaking GM sound modules were patches are often tweaked that way on the fly...

Think of the "Built-in editor" of your favorite softsynth that can be pulled up from the "Tools" menu (not the "Plugin's editor", which brings up the GUI...) Now, think of something that you could virtualize a hardware synth's controllers using some kind of text editor and some kind of instrument controller definition file, which, in addition to the standard CC numbers, could select RPN's, NRPN's, or even a DIY SysEx stream. Then you pull that list up to, for example, assign a controller to modify the filter resonance level or cutoff frequency using the "Assign MIDI controllers"

Or you could use it to send values on any MIDI filter event...

Just something to add control to a HW synth just like for the soft synths. Then for me, Cantabile would be feature complete, the ultimate host for live performance integrating hardware and software synths.

[TiUser]

"Just something to add control to a HW synth just like for the soft synths."

I see, added as controller assignment map for external HW.

[TiUser]

Over 500 views and just 16 votes 'til now?

[viberunner]

I've already said this but being able to assign DAW features to MIDI triggers, I want Morph on a Fader. That would be really useful for me.

[TiUser]

I am not sure how you mean this.

I don't think we will get direct DAW control protocols like HUI or Mackie control.

What do you mean with "DAW" features? Morph sounds like a continuous control you want to set or twiddle...

A trigger is something that reacts to an event with an action. The basic action is sending midi controller values or notes and some other choices.

So if Morph can be controlled via midi a trigger can already do this and set up a new value for it.

However I agree that setting up more than a couple of triggers is tedious and hard to keep track on.

[viberunner]

Yes, okay, just to map a Fader.

He might not want (or need) to put in full DAW MIDI control but Morph and a few others would really help, both for live performance and even in studio sound design. I did write to Brad a long time ago and he confirmed the feature was not in (I asked how to do it) but he said it might be useful and he would think about it.

The Morph feature is extremely strong, and has the potential to be a unique selling point. The ability to load a multiple set of value to morph between, and then morph between them with a fader or joystick, during play, has so much potential I can't even begin to describe it. And I'm only thinking about it from a very limited perspective of Organ play, what it would be able to do with a proper Synth doesn't bear thinking about.

And it should be very easy to implement too, which might help the chance of it happening.

Some VSTs have something like the feature built-in to them, I know Vintage Keyboard FX does. But to have it at the DAW level - making all VSTs have it - would be most excellent.

[TiUser]

Oh, I think I understand now - I usually don't call Cantabile a "DAW" but a live vst host... You mean the morph function in Cantabile's VST editor - right? I remember this was already discussed anytime...

[viberunner]

Right on. I don't need to be able to map most of the Cantabile controls to a controller, though arguably that might be handy, but mapping the Morph would open up a world of possibilities.