Software that supports MPE

[BobDog]

Hey BobDog,

You can use Tom's Multi script with 1-16 channels of MIDI. Put these in a group and the plugin you want to control on the group master and it should work.

About Logic, I had no idea that it does not support selecting independent MIDI devices per track. I assumed that since this is available in Mainstage, it would be available in Logic. And it is -- if you want to go the audio only route, you can wire it up in the environment. I was also unable to get the CC automation converter to work (to change Ch. 74 to Ch. 11 for Diva) even though other users report that it works for them.

At this point I'm evaluating Reaper, which is quite a double edged sword in many ways. The default configuration is pretty confusing but with just a couple of add-ons it becomes quite reasonable (get the improved menus ASAP). I must admit to never giving it a truly fair chance before. Now that I have, I am quite liking what I'm experiencing. There is even a third party plugin called Playtime that delivers a session view.

Oh, and filtering CC74 to be CC11 (or to whatever you like) couldn't be easier. There's a situation with MIDI overdub where the channels can end up overlapping. On the other hand, Reaper gives me several programming languages to implement a solution in.

Thanks for the info.

Not sure what you mean by "independent midi devices per track" but you can edit any modulation on a per note/channel basis in Logic like in the cubase video above. Is that what you meant?

[Echoes in the Attic]

Oddly enough, Bitwig has been my main DAW for a couple of years at this point but it was the introduction of the LinnStrument last November that led me to start looking elsewhere. There was a bug in 1.3.15, apparently, which is part of why I never ever felt like the LS was doing what I intended with Bitwig. I also have just been spending my time practicing rather than recording, so also more or less figured that it would work once I dug into it.

Now I've been playing with the new beta and just felt completely let down by the state of MPE in their software. It seems they've decided to abandon the "it's-just-MIDI" approach (bog standard, per-channel which works with any multi-timbral sound module) and go all-in on VST note-expression.

Imagine my disappointment when I realize that this new release we've all been waiting for will not even record channel attributes in its MIDI data.

This is exactly the problem I was trying to figure out before I purchased a linnstrument!!! Roger wasn't aware of this issue when I emailed them, but you're the third other person now to mention it recently, so hopefully he understands how Bitwig is not actually a very good DAW for the linnstrument, unless you're only using the built-in instruments. Reaper, Cubase and Logic all seem to have proper support for MPE though. I love everything else about Bitwig but am pretty bummed about the poor MPE implementation.

[ceasless]

Not sure what you mean by "independent midi devices per track" but you can edit any modulation on a per note/channel basis in Logic like in the cubase video above. Is that what you meant?

In most modern DAWs, tracks accepting MIDI will feature an input selection dropdown of some sort from which you can choose "All inputs", "LinnStrument", "ACME Keyboard", et al.

Logic tracks, to my shock, do not have such an input selection dropdown. Over the next 24 hours of research, I came to the harsh realization that Logic effectively uses only a single MIDI "bus" and it mixes all of your hardware into that single bus. It therefore has a hard limit of 16 channels of MIDI input for recording MIDI input. If you wish to record audio only, you can route individual devices to specific instrument tracks using Logic's (pretty cool, but seemingly abandoned, environment).

And yes, you need to manually align the inputs and tracks to a particular channel (or range of channels, at which point I'm back to treating expressive MIDI as multi-track data) as well as enabling a preference setting.

So if I am willing to live with the limitation, editing expressive MIDI works similar to how it does in Cubase and Reaper where you have per-channel information in a single MIDI clip.

This is exactly the problem I was trying to figure out before I purchased a linnstrument!!! Roger wasn't aware of this issue when I emailed them, but you're the third other person now to mention it recently, so hopefully he understands how Bitwig is not actually a very good DAW for the linnstrument, unless you're only using the built-in instruments. Reaper, Cubase and Logic all seem to have proper support for MPE though. I love everything else about Bitwig but am pretty bummed about the poor MPE implementation.

Unfortunately I was told directly in Bitwig's 2.0 beta Google Group by a Bitwig dev that it does not store channel information. Furthermore he mentioned an on-going debate about whether it would ever arrive.

After absorbing this and looking at the other bug reports, that was the night I decided I would let them catch up to themselves and in the meantime find a DAW that is up to the task of recording and replaying expressive MIDI. So far, that looks like Reaper.

I'm not out to bash Bitwig -- it was top-notch until I ran into this issue. And I'm not excited to be in DAW limbo/re-integration right now.

Hopefully Roger will be able to apply some pressure and sway the Bitwig team to allow channel attribution.

And just to make sure I wasn't just chasing a pointless task, I made sure to record a LinnStrument performance and then play it back while adjusting filters and other attributes. It was a lot of fun and confirmed (to me, anyway) that I'm not crazy for wanting/expecting a normal-ish MIDI recording and playback workflow that can support a LinnStrument.

Edited to make clear that Logic does provide device-input-per-track routing through it's environment as long as you don't want to record the MIDI.

[Roger_Linn]

I think I understand what's happening in Bitwig. If I'm correct, their method of implementing MPE is not to record and time-stamp raw MIDI data as received (including channel information), but rather to convert it to their own internal data structure which links a note's continuous X, Y and Z messages with the played pitch (note number). The good news is that you can still play and edit each polyphonic note including its unique continuous X, Y and Z data. The bad news is that it can't handle simultaneous expressive data for two independent and simultaneous notes that happen to use the same note number. This is because the two sets of expressive data are both associated with the same note number.

It's not ideal and I suspect this gave them an easier way to implement most of MPE. Personally I don't find this a big limitation, and if you want Live's workflow and also want MPE, Bitwig is way better than Live.

[Echoes in the Attic]

I think I understand what's happening in Bitwig. If I'm correct, their method of implementing MPE is not to record and time-stamp raw MIDI data as received (including channel information), but rather to convert it to their own internal data structure which links a note's continuous X, Y and Z messages with the played pitch (note number). The good news is that you can still play and edit each polyphonic note including its unique continuous X, Y and Z data. The bad news is that it can't handle simultaneous expressive data for two independent and simultaneous notes that happen to use the same note number. This is because the two sets of expressive data are both associated with the same note number.

It's not ideal and I suspect this gave them an easier way to implement most of MPE. Personally I don't find this a big limitation, and if you want Live's workflow and also want MPE, Bitwig is way better than Live.

There is more bad news than just not being able to play the same note number, as I've described several times. If you have a gap between two notes, they will also use the same channel on playback because they don't overlap. So if you have a longish release time and do any kind of expression, that expression will apply to both the new note and the one that is still heard but ended. I find this very noticable if two notes are close but don't overlap and you immediately bend a note. The previous one gets bent too. The way around this is to either have a very short release or use something where each individual voice is mono (possible with some instruments and not with others). But even this isn't great as it means stealing voices for anything on the same channel. Another issue is that it would make other modes of channel splitting useless for recording midi, like the channel per row mode. This mode seems like it would be great for being able to use legato, or scripted hammer-ons for example, while still being able to play polyphonically. But this won't play back the same, so you really have to record direct to audio in this case.

[Roger_Linn]

I guess I've never noticed that because I don't use sounds with long releases, which seems to me antithetical to expressive control. I do use short release sounds with a sustain pedal. Regardless, I just tried recording MPE in Bitwig 8-Track version 1.3.15 using a long-release sound, playing and releasing one note followed by playing another note sliding in pitch, with the pitch slide overlapping the first note's release, then played it back. I found no effect from the sliding note's pitch on the held note's pitch, either while playing it live or playing back the recorded sequence. I tried the same thing in Bitwig Studio 2 beta 4 and got the same result.

[Echoes in the Attic]

I guess I've never noticed that because I don't use sounds with long releases, which seems to me antithetical to expressive control. I do use short release sounds with a sustain pedal. Regardless, I just tried recording MPE in Bitwig 8-Track version 1.3.15 using a long-release sound, playing and releasing one note followed by playing another note sliding in pitch, with the pitch slide overlapping the first note's release, then played it back. I found no effect from the sliding note's pitch on the held note's pitch, either while playing it live or playing back the recorded sequence. I tried the same thing in Bitwig Studio 2 beta 4 and got the same result.

What VST are you using? As I've said here and by email, Bitwig's built-in instrument do not have this problem because they seem to have their own method of splitting notes, and don't rely specifically on midi channel separation. Use for example synthmaster or something with MPE support where you can't tell the individual channels to be mono. Or use Kontakt or Omnisphere where each copy is its own channel. If the individual copies are poly you'll get this issue. If you set them to mono you'll be stealing voices everywhere. Using a sustain pedal with shorter release would seem like the best option. But ambient sounds can be nice to have a soft fade out. And those will have issues. Bigger issue i think is not being able to record different midi modes like channel per row, which would be really useful. But this is all a Bitwig shortcoming of their method of implementation. They really should store the midi channel with a note like everyone else. There are plenty of scenarios where it actually matters what channel was played and you don't Bitwig to change it in playback. And I won't even get started on the fact that Bitwig's per note pitch bend only works if the instrument has a bend range of +/-48 semi-tones, whereas other hosts allow you to set the bend range...

[Roger_Linn]

I don't use any VSTs because I'm on mac. I was using Bitwig's Polysynth and FM4. Regardless, assuming what you say it true and it is important to you to use MPE VST instruments on Bitwig, it seems Bitwig is not the best choice for you.

[Echoes in the Attic]

For the record I meant plugins. So AU as well obviously.

And yes Bitwig isn't ideal for anyone using MPE with plugins. However unfortunately the rest of the program is too good to switch to something else!

[ceasless]

I don't use any VSTs because I'm on mac. I was using Bitwig's Polysynth and FM4. Regardless, assuming what you say it true and it is important to you to use MPE VST instruments on Bitwig, it seems Bitwig is not the best choice for you.

Hi Roger,

I've been waiting to respond to this thread because I wanted a cool head. But I'd like to point out that you are to some extent moving goal posts. Echoes and I are both Bitwig users and have offered our share of help and opinion in the Bitwig forum.

We are both simply lamenting that Bitwig is currently hobbled for anything less than their own native devices and (presumably) note expression VSTs.

I mentioned in my first post that everything was perfect about this DAW ... until the LinnStrument made me want a precise multi-channel MIDI workflow. This is the backwards compatibility that was part of the argument that convinced me of the LS -- use any multi-timbral instrument with expressive control!

I'm not going to copy paste the statements of Bitwig devs from their Google Group to KVR, but you can look up my ticket about 'Preserve' being broken as an option in the MIDI channel dropdown -- everything sent only on channel 16 prior to beta 5.

I've just confirmed that it 'preserve' is fixed in 2.0b5. But only if I switch from using the LinnStrumnet-specific script to using the 'Generic MIDI Keyboard' profile instead.

This doesn't address the lack of channel attribution in MIDI clips, though! There is no 'Force MPE' option for the hardware instrument device. Everything will flow on channel 1. Again directly paraphrasing the Bitwig engineer from my bug report.

He also said that they will try to add some new MIDI-related features in 2.1. So there's that.

I'm going to look into code options to enable this as a MIDI effect, but it's not clear if that's even possible in VST3, which is the format I will need to use to have the note expression information required to make channel attribution of modulation information even possible..

The point of the turn this thread has taken, in my opinion, is that there are few good options when it comes to DAWs which support the fully possibilities of a LinnStrument workflow.

[SneakyT]

I think the thing that most of you are angry about is that Bigwig doesn't fully support MPE (especially when it comes to recording midi data). I can understand how that would be frustrating but it doesn't mean that you can't use your Linnstrument nor is it Roger's fault that they (Bigwig) chose to implement it the way they did. Early adopters often pay the price for new technologies. That said there are multiple DAWS that fully support the new standard. Logic, Cubase, and Reaper come to mind. BTW those are no slouches in the DAW market. I believe that's two of the top three as a matter of fact. Give Bigwig a bit of time to react to the very, very small market that we comprise or move to the other options that exist.

[Roger_Linn]

Hi echoes and ceaseless,

Ceasless-- thank you for kindly waiting for your head to cool. If I understand you correctly, you were angry at me because the implementation of MPE in the Bitwig company's product does not meet your needs. I actually thought I was helpful in recently taking the time to trace down the essence of the Bitwig problem for you, even though it is not my product. But if you did not find it helpful, I apologize.

I further apologize for not remembering all of your posts and emails in order to piece together all the details of your complaint about Bitwig's product. With over 15,000 customers and no employees, sometimes it's difficult for me to remember everyone's history of posts and emails, especially given that the forum's cloak of anonymity prevents me from associating your posts with any emails you may have sent me.

Although Bitwig does not meet your needs, I appreciate that they provide a free license for 8-Track to every Linnstrument owner. By the way, they are a tiny team of smart and good people trying their best to make something beautiful, well-designed and unencumbered by the legacy code that troubles most established DAWs. And it is very much an uphill battle to break into a very crowded market where their customers want everything now. And though most of their customers probably don't understand what MPE is--or even what musical expression is or what notes are--I appreciate the fact that they valued adding any implementation of MPE to their product.

I would imagine that you're angry with Bitwig too. As you continue your fight with them, I kindly ask you to consider one of my favorite English expressions: "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".

[Echoes in the Attic]

Hi echoes and ceaseless,

Ceasless-- thank you for kindly waiting for your head to cool. If I understand you correctly, you were angry at me because the implementation of MPE in the Bitwig company's product does not meet your needs. I actually thought I was helpful in recently taking the time to trace down the essence of the Bitwig problem for you, even though it is not my product. But if you did not find it helpful, I apologize.

I further apologize for not remembering all of your posts and emails in order to piece together all the details of your complaint about Bitwig's product. With over 15,000 customers and no employees, sometimes it's difficult for me to remember everyone's history of posts and emails, especially given that the forum's cloak of anonymity prevents me from associating your posts with any emails you may have sent me.

Although Bitwig does not meet your needs, I appreciate that they provide a free license for 8-Track to every Linnstrument owner. By the way, they are a tiny team of smart and good people trying their best to make something beautiful, well-designed and unencumbered by the legacy code that troubles most established DAWs. And it is very much an uphill battle to break into a very crowded market where their customers want everything now. And though most of their customers probably don't understand what MPE is--or even what musical expression is or what notes are--I appreciate the fact that they valued adding any implementation of MPE to their product.

I would imagine that you're angry with Bitwig too. As you continue your fight with them, I kindly ask you to consider one of my favorite English expressions: "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".

To the extent that this was partially directed at me, I really don't find this fair at all. I was simply doing my due diligence to understand the relationship between the linnstrument and DAWs to understand how data is communicated and stored before purchasing a linnstrument. I brought some information to your attention by email thinking you'd be interested in how your hardware works with other DAWs and you told me to go to the forum instead. Then you said above that it's hard to relate forum posts to emails and "piece together all the info", but all the info was contained in one place in the first place. This wasn't a complaint about Bitwig, I was asking questions about how MPE data from the innstrument should ideally be stored since I noticed some potential issues with Bitwig's method. I've since learned that indeed other DAWs store the channel info with notes and it all makes sense now and it is clear to the bitwig community that this is something that needs improvement. This is, and was never a complaint about Bitwig directed at you. It was questions and a discussion about the relationship between hardware and software in what is, as you say, a new emerging technology. You have DAWs and instruments listed on your site that are compatible, so you can't really blame us for thinking you'd be interested in what software is or is not compatible, or have certain issues to be aware of right? And you really don't need to be defensive of Bitwig. Those of us that use it are well appreciative of it or would not be using it despite it's issues with MPE data.

Anyways, I ended up getting to the bottom of it with some info from Roli and others in the Bitwig community so I hope that info has some value here as well.

And on catching flies with honey, yes I agree (which is why I apologized by email for seemingly irritating you with information that as you said "might be a problem although I hadn't tried it"), but passive aggressive honey isn't really honey. It's more like vinegar with a touch of sugar on top.

Anyways, I still think I'll be ordering a linnstrument soon, but please try to be open to discussion about your excellent hardware works with different software, as I think knowing why some things might not work as expected is useful for your customers and once they know what the cause of the problem is, then they can use workarounds (like recording directly to audio, which would be necessary in bitwig for example to capture many guitar script expressions like hammer-ons etc. since they won't be stored polyphonically properly in bitwig).

Cheers

[gbevin]

FWIW, I do want to point out that MPE is not published as a standard yet. Either people are on the MMA working group and have one of the drafts, or they've been working on outdated early drafts or snippets of information that are available throughout the internet.

While it might feel frustrating that some products don't interact well yet with the MPE label, do bear in mind that in reality it does not exist yet! What we have here is a first effort that basically shows from many companies an interest in the technology, before MPE was being specified even this was not happening. I think it's normal that companies don't invest more resources into something that is essentially a moving target.

The MMA MPE working group is getting close to a final document that will be voted on for approval in the near future. Once that final specification is published publicly, I think it's fair to give every company at least 6-12 months to implement proper support for it if they've advertised it as a feature. In the meantime, anything that anyone has done regarding MPE support has been purely a gift that was done out of goodwill and passion for the expressive controller community.

[Echoes in the Attic]

FWIW, I do want to point out that MPE is not published as a standard yet. Either people are on the MMA working group and have one of the drafts, or they've been working on outdated early drafts or snippets of information that are available throughout the internet.

While it might feel frustrating that some products don't interact well yet with the MPE label, do bear in mind that in reality it does not exist yet! What we have here is a first effort that basically shows from many companies an interest in the technology, before MPE was being specified even this was not happening. I think it's normal that companies don't invest more resources into something that is essentially a moving target.

The MMA MPE working group is getting close to a final document that will be voted on for approval in the near future. Once that final specification is published publicly, I think it's fair to give every company at least 6-12 months to implement proper support for it if they've advertised it as a feature. In the meantime, anything that anyone has done regarding MPE support has been purely a gift that was done out of goodwill and passion for the expressive controller community.

Totally understood! And thanks for the update on the progress. The fact that it's not finalized yet was even more of a motivation to really send detailed information about how some software was interpreting and storing MPE data. And my understanding was that you guys at Roger Lynn were directly involved in writing the specs, so I thought it would be useful to bring up some of these potential issues as the specs were still being finalized. Better to have the kinks known and worked out before it's finalized (or even to have suggested best practices for software that supports MPE) so that potential issues could be anticipated right? So yeah while it is a little frustrating that my DAW of choice (Bitwig) is missing some key functionality with regards to MPE that other DAWs have, I do totally appreciate that they have anything there at all given that the spec isn't finalized. But to be honest it's a bit more frustrating when examination of how some software/hardware combinations are met with disinterest or defensiveness when it should be useful information. That's the main point here I think. Cheers.