Afaik all u-he synths (at least ACE as well) do polyphonic aftertouch? Also Memorymoon ME80 supports it. I think that the feature should be available at least. I've also heard that the Prophet 08 responds to it.
I consider myself lucky because I got hold of a used Elka MK-55 Master Keyboard Controller that actually supports Poly AT. It's great to be able to play i.e. ACE and ME80 with it. I really do think that "note expression" such as pressure and even pitch bend per note level should be developed as a standard for the future.
Polyphonic Aftertouch (or Better) should be standard
-
- KVRAF
- 3080 posts since 17 Apr, 2005 from S.E. TN
One thing I've wondered-- Does any sequencer offer a bang-up slick way to pianoroll edit poly pressure?
For instance if using poly pressure to emulate subtle string quartet dynamics, you basically have a different volume envelope per note. Similarly if mapped to pitch, you have all those different pitch envelopes per note.
Just curious if any sequencer has tried to make graphic edit of poly pressure easy and fun. I've written a few piano roll editors, some not too shabby IMO, but am at kind of a loss how you could make editing poly pressure simple quick and fun.
For instance, perhaps the piano roll window would display the poly pressure curve in a controller strip when a note is selected. For monophonic melody lines, it could still work about the same, multiple notes sharing the same controller strip in the editor. The editor would only have to be smart enough to constrain drawn curves to each note duration with which the data is associated.
But once notes start overlapping, things could get messy. If there is an 8 note chord do you open 8 controller strips? And how does the user easily quickly visually associate each note to its controller strip?
Perhaps one could control-click a note to pop up a poly pressure editor for that note, but I'd get tired of that rigamarole almost instantly, long before editing the first track was finished.
For instance if using poly pressure to emulate subtle string quartet dynamics, you basically have a different volume envelope per note. Similarly if mapped to pitch, you have all those different pitch envelopes per note.
Just curious if any sequencer has tried to make graphic edit of poly pressure easy and fun. I've written a few piano roll editors, some not too shabby IMO, but am at kind of a loss how you could make editing poly pressure simple quick and fun.
For instance, perhaps the piano roll window would display the poly pressure curve in a controller strip when a note is selected. For monophonic melody lines, it could still work about the same, multiple notes sharing the same controller strip in the editor. The editor would only have to be smart enough to constrain drawn curves to each note duration with which the data is associated.
But once notes start overlapping, things could get messy. If there is an 8 note chord do you open 8 controller strips? And how does the user easily quickly visually associate each note to its controller strip?
Perhaps one could control-click a note to pop up a poly pressure editor for that note, but I'd get tired of that rigamarole almost instantly, long before editing the first track was finished.
-
- KVRAF
- 5139 posts since 27 Jun, 2004
There's no shortcut to make editing multiple notes' aftertouch pressure possible in a sensible and "fun" way. You have to focus on one note at a time. Anything else is too confusing. The least confusing multi visualization would be making every separate note in the roll show as a mini velocity/pressure curve, where you can edit each note's curve when you click it in combination with the control key or something. But course, if you really want "realistic expression", aftertouch alone is far from enough, anyway.JCJR wrote:Just curious if any sequencer has tried to make graphic edit of poly pressure easy and fun. I've written a few piano roll editors, some not too shabby IMO, but am at kind of a loss how you could make editing poly pressure simple quick and fun.
"Music is spiritual. The music business is not." - Claudio Monteverdi
-
- KVRAF
- 5716 posts since 8 Jun, 2009
Cubase 6 and onwards can attach poly-AT data to individual notes which are then manipulated in the Note Expression popup for each note (now that they've done the VST Note Expression thing). You can pretty quickly shift the data back and forth or go in with a pencil tool to do micro edits.JCJR wrote:One thing I've wondered-- Does any sequencer offer a bang-up slick way to pianoroll edit poly pressure?
For instance if using poly pressure to emulate subtle string quartet dynamics, you basically have a different volume envelope per note. Similarly if mapped to pitch, you have all those different pitch envelopes per note.
Just curious if any sequencer has tried to make graphic edit of poly pressure easy and fun. I've written a few piano roll editors, some not too shabby IMO, but am at kind of a loss how you could make editing poly pressure simple quick and fun.
For instance, perhaps the piano roll window would display the poly pressure curve in a controller strip when a note is selected. For monophonic melody lines, it could still work about the same, multiple notes sharing the same controller strip in the editor. The editor would only have to be smart enough to constrain drawn curves to each note duration with which the data is associated.
But once notes start overlapping, things could get messy. If there is an 8 note chord do you open 8 controller strips? And how does the user easily quickly visually associate each note to its controller strip?
Perhaps one could control-click a note to pop up a poly pressure editor for that note, but I'd get tired of that rigamarole almost instantly, long before editing the first track was finished.
In Logic, it's more a matter of filtering the data or exploding polyphony and then editing in different tracks much like you'd do with data from a guitar controller (unless there's a more up to date way of doing it) with per-note pitch bends. With guitar-like stuff, the chance of having more than one or two bends per section is pretty remote.
For a string quartet, you'd really want to arrange the lines separately in the first place although poly-AT is a reasonable way of getting some note data in before working on it, maybe mapping poly-AT to expression per channel after the fact.
I tend to use poly-AT for slow chord work, so the chances of it needing an edit are slim and if the take was that bad, you might as well do it again. Ditto stuff with breath controllers – edited breath data often comes off as artificial IME.
-
- KVRAF
- 5627 posts since 23 Mar, 2006 from pendeLondonmonium
Tracktion is another DAW that can do per-note aftertouch editing. (edit. ah already mentioned in the above post ).
Personally, I'm not too bothered about editing aftertouch data. I just want to record a performance and get some enjoyment from doing it. If I play wrong notes, or all the pressure data was recorded badly, I'd just re-do it. It's much faster than spending time editing, and just more pleasurable. Obviously, there are times when editing is needed. However, how are companies to develop good editing methods, if there are no poly-aft compatible keyboards available and in wider use? Hence, we need this to become a standard.
Personally, I'm not too bothered about editing aftertouch data. I just want to record a performance and get some enjoyment from doing it. If I play wrong notes, or all the pressure data was recorded badly, I'd just re-do it. It's much faster than spending time editing, and just more pleasurable. Obviously, there are times when editing is needed. However, how are companies to develop good editing methods, if there are no poly-aft compatible keyboards available and in wider use? Hence, we need this to become a standard.
-
- KVRAF
- 25483 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
himalaya wrote:However, how are companies to develop good editing methods, if there are no poly-aft compatible keyboards available and in wider use? Hence, we need this to become a standard.
-
- KVRian
- 868 posts since 2 Jan, 2013
usually i don't even bother recording midi, i just go straight to audio...
(just too much midi data to be practical, more below...)
when I do capture midi, i do very little note editing, I just have another take if I get it wrong (so alot of 'takes')
the only editing i do is on the odd note, e.g. the odd 'ghost note' I've introduced accidentally, or where the velocity is too extreme.
Bitwigs approach is good for this, nice and easy to see the 'extremes' on its per note expressions (timbre),
and also I think the expression graph and tools ( mean,average, chaos) over track sections is a a very interesting concept that could perhaps be explored more....
with per note expression there can be so much data (from a real controller) , its unrealistic to edit it manually
(e.g. an Eigenharp can produce 6000 events per second for one note (its 2Khz, per key, per axis) *)
so for this, Id like more 'intelligent tools', e.g. id like to select a section of track, and then perhaps
- smooth and unclutter events (perhaps i don't need all the tiny pb movements, just a smoothed version)
- remove extremes, say specify a range
(*note: I can reduce data rates etc in eigenharp, but would be nice to do at the DAW stage, perhaps with non destructive editing)
BWS is not quite there yet (but doing well for version 1!), its per note expression needs expanding,
and its needs to support 'voice per midi channel' (Vpc) on a track to capture the per note expression (like pitch bend)
the good news is, that BWS has resisted track = midi channel, so I hope VpC -> Track -> VpC (for vsts supporting) should be possible.. unlike Ableton, which has track = 1 midi channel in a pretty ingrained way (imho)
(just too much midi data to be practical, more below...)
when I do capture midi, i do very little note editing, I just have another take if I get it wrong (so alot of 'takes'
)the only editing i do is on the odd note, e.g. the odd 'ghost note' I've introduced accidentally, or where the velocity is too extreme.
Bitwigs approach is good for this, nice and easy to see the 'extremes' on its per note expressions (timbre),
and also I think the expression graph and tools ( mean,average, chaos) over track sections is a a very interesting concept that could perhaps be explored more....
with per note expression there can be so much data (from a real controller) , its unrealistic to edit it manually
(e.g. an Eigenharp can produce 6000 events per second for one note (its 2Khz, per key, per axis) *)
so for this, Id like more 'intelligent tools', e.g. id like to select a section of track, and then perhaps
- smooth and unclutter events (perhaps i don't need all the tiny pb movements, just a smoothed version)
- remove extremes, say specify a range
(*note: I can reduce data rates etc in eigenharp, but would be nice to do at the DAW stage, perhaps with non destructive editing)
BWS is not quite there yet (but doing well for version 1!), its per note expression needs expanding,
and its needs to support 'voice per midi channel' (Vpc) on a track to capture the per note expression (like pitch bend)
the good news is, that BWS has resisted track = midi channel, so I hope VpC -> Track -> VpC (for vsts supporting) should be possible.. unlike Ableton, which has track = 1 midi channel in a pretty ingrained way (imho)
-
- KVRAF
- 3080 posts since 17 Apr, 2005 from S.E. TN
Thanks all for the descriptions of extant poly AT editing facilities.
Re the problem of re-take versus edit, it depends on musical ability and one's capability to play what one wishes to play, within some feasible time period. Preferably grinding out an acceptable take before the final heat death of the universe-- Which might be considered the ultimate deadline.
Though I suppose doggedly re-taking a part, beyond one's ability to play, for hours on end until one take accidentally happens to be "good enough to keep" could be viewed as good for one's moral character. In addition, it keeps a fellow from having to worry what to do with all those hours which would otherwise have needed filling, had those hours not been expended on plunking out a couple of minutes audio playtime. A practical equivalent of hanon exercises!
A cost-benefit decision, requiring wisdom to know when to quit trying to nail the part, and just edit out the flaws instead. Neither hours spent re-taking, nor hours spent editing, fit the usual conception of instant gratification. Perhaps there is a minimum to the curve in there somewhere, depending on each person's finger accuracy, ambition beyond ability, and picky-ness?
Perhaps audio workstations need an artificial intelligence feature to notice a musician floundering, and pop up a dialog-
"Probability has risen to the level of 0.95 that you can't get this track right before the heat death of the universe, and p = 0.999999999 that you can't do it today. Do you want to: [Keep track and open edit window] [Keep torturing yourself trying to play a part obviously beyond your feeble ability] [Save, shutdown, and go fishing]"
Re the problem of re-take versus edit, it depends on musical ability and one's capability to play what one wishes to play, within some feasible time period. Preferably grinding out an acceptable take before the final heat death of the universe-- Which might be considered the ultimate deadline.
Though I suppose doggedly re-taking a part, beyond one's ability to play, for hours on end until one take accidentally happens to be "good enough to keep" could be viewed as good for one's moral character. In addition, it keeps a fellow from having to worry what to do with all those hours which would otherwise have needed filling, had those hours not been expended on plunking out a couple of minutes audio playtime.
A practical equivalent of hanon exercises!A cost-benefit decision, requiring wisdom to know when to quit trying to nail the part, and just edit out the flaws instead. Neither hours spent re-taking, nor hours spent editing, fit the usual conception of instant gratification. Perhaps there is a minimum to the curve in there somewhere, depending on each person's finger accuracy, ambition beyond ability, and picky-ness?
Perhaps audio workstations need an artificial intelligence feature to notice a musician floundering, and pop up a dialog-
"Probability has risen to the level of 0.95 that you can't get this track right before the heat death of the universe, and p = 0.999999999 that you can't do it today. Do you want to: [Keep track and open edit window] [Keep torturing yourself trying to play a part obviously beyond your feeble ability] [Save, shutdown, and go fishing]"
-
- KVRAF
- 6305 posts since 9 Dec, 2008 from Berlin
LOLJCJR wrote:"Probability has risen to the level of 0.95 that you can't get this track right before the heat death of the universe, and p = 0.999999999 that you can't do it today. Do you want to: [Keep track and open edit window] [Keep torturing yourself trying to play a part obviously beyond your feeble ability] [Save, shutdown, and go fishing]"
"Out beyond the ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I’ll meet you there." - Rumi
ScreenDream Instagram Mastodon
ScreenDream Instagram Mastodon
-
- KVRAF
- 25483 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
It's called practice... musicians have been doing it for centuriesJCJR wrote:Though I suppose doggedly re-taking a part, beyond one's ability to play, for hours on end until one take accidentally happens to be "good enough to keep" could be viewed as good for one's moral character. In addition, it keeps a fellow from having to worry what to do with all those hours which would otherwise have needed filling, had those hours not been expended on plunking out a couple of minutes audio playtime.
-
- KVRAF
- 5716 posts since 8 Jun, 2009
Realistically, you're going to adjust to whatever works. That's why I mentioned the technique for dealing with the data from MIDI guitar pickups. If you really need to edit, it can be easier to either deal with monophonic channels from the start, in which you have the full gamut of channel controller messages to play with, or record it in with poly-AT and then convert. Most sequencers can now deal with multichannel display so you can see what you're doing – and that can be easier than trying to wrestle with per-note data.JCJR wrote:Though I suppose doggedly re-taking a part, beyond one's ability to play, for hours on end until one take accidentally happens to be "good enough to keep" could be viewed as good for one's moral character. In addition, it keeps a fellow from having to worry what to do with all those hours which would otherwise have needed filling, had those hours not been expended on plunking out a couple of minutes audio playtime.
But in a lot of cases, it may simply be easier to practice some moves and gestures and expect to record those with minimal or no editing. It's like trying to do MIDI guitar parts. There comes a point where it's just way quicker to either take some time out and learn the gestures and either record them or send them to a proper guitarist to play them, instead of spending hours micro-editing MIDI only to find it doesn't sound right because, not being a guitarist, you don't know how fingers move on a fretboard.
People tend to regard synths as a big bag of patches because they often have such limited controls. But I recall an old interview in something like Future Music with Brian Eno, where what he said he wanted was something like a DX7 with fewer visible editing controls but more articulation – that is, treat the thing more like a physical instrument where simply moving it around changes the sound.
The VL-1 went someway towards that, albeit a different architecture. Because it accepts so many different articulation methods, you tend to not bother surfing through lots of patches but focusing effort on a small number and treating it more like a non-electronic instrument and one you practice with. Now, with sophisticated DAWs to easily map controllers to synths, it's possible to do the same with inputs like poly-AT and breath for practically any synth.
Where it's not possible to get those together in real time for a given sound, then just find another way to do it. However, as with guitar, what you tend to find IME is things like pitch bend gestures and breath-driven envelopes, it's really hard to get it sounding natural by drawing with a mouse. Practice a bit with the real controllers, and it generally works better.
A more extreme example perhaps is one I saw recently on another forum. Someone wanted poly-AT in Pianoteq, which sounds really stupid at first. But they wanted a clavichord simulation, and clavichords can do vibrato by wobbling the keys. I doubt anyone would ever do a convincing clavichord performance by playing piano-style and editing the aftertouch data afterwards. You'd pretty much have to learn to do it for real. In any case, the person asking could already play a clavichord.
-
- KVRAF
- 5627 posts since 23 Mar, 2006 from pendeLondonmonium
orJCJR wrote:
"Probability has risen to the level of 0.95 that you can't get this track right before the heat death of the universe, and p = 0.999999999 that you can't do it today. Do you want to: [Keep track and open edit window] [Keep torturing yourself trying to play a part obviously beyond your feeble ability] [Save, shutdown, and go fishing]"
Get a new hobby and become a stamp collector. No risk of spending time honing a skill.
There will be times when editing is required, like noted in my post. But otherwise, why are we averse to developing the skill of playing a keyboard? Somehow, musicians who use acoustic instruments do not have that safety net of recording midi and editing in such detail, and yet they get by. The universe does not collapse on their practice weary heads...
-
- KVRAF
- 3080 posts since 17 Apr, 2005 from S.E. TN
Thanks PXIndy, Gamma-UT and Himalaya for the good ideas.
Figuring about 8 hours per week weekenders from 1967 to 1972, and 26+ hours per week six night gigs 1973 thru 1996. Only occasional gigging since 1996, got too busy programming, and got kinda fried crispy on live work. As far as I can figure it tallies up to at least 34,320 hours tickling the ivories on stage, and believe it or not I also practiced a time or two during those decades. For what little good that accomplished.
Its great if a person can quickly nail what he wants to play. Tis a virtue to become as good as one can get, and work diligently at it. I got as good as I'm ever gonna get years ago, pitifully incompetent as that might be. So if I can't lay what I want, I'll get as close as possible then fix it in the editor.
There is "quality" and then there is "quality". Back in the stone age when I was in bands and we would pay the big bucks to record in studios, before home studios were affordable-- We would practice our eyeballs out on a song before going to the studio, because time was money. We could get thru the song 99 percent, every time, on stage. But in the studio, 99 percent wasn't good enough paying $100 an hour and having to regret those 1 percent of mistakes forever after. It was easy to get it 99 percent but real difficult to get it 100 percent. Which is why some folks make the big bucks as in-demand studio musicians.
At least with a home studio, it isn't so expensive if a person of limited talent wants to take forever getting it 100 percent "the old fashioned way".
I don't disagree. I may be a leading candidate for the title of World Champion Least Competent Musician To Ever Work Steady. Blame it on luck. Plus I was easy to get along with and always showed up on time. Occasionally even arrived at work sober!himalaya wrote:There will be times when editing is required, like noted in my post. But otherwise, why are we averse to developing the skill of playing a keyboard? Somehow, musicians who use acoustic instruments do not have that safety net of recording midi and editing in such detail, and yet they get by. The universe does not collapse on their practice weary heads...
Figuring about 8 hours per week weekenders from 1967 to 1972, and 26+ hours per week six night gigs 1973 thru 1996. Only occasional gigging since 1996, got too busy programming, and got kinda fried crispy on live work. As far as I can figure it tallies up to at least 34,320 hours tickling the ivories on stage, and believe it or not I also practiced a time or two during those decades. For what little good that accomplished.
Its great if a person can quickly nail what he wants to play. Tis a virtue to become as good as one can get, and work diligently at it. I got as good as I'm ever gonna get years ago, pitifully incompetent as that might be. So if I can't lay what I want, I'll get as close as possible then fix it in the editor.
There is "quality" and then there is "quality". Back in the stone age when I was in bands and we would pay the big bucks to record in studios, before home studios were affordable-- We would practice our eyeballs out on a song before going to the studio, because time was money. We could get thru the song 99 percent, every time, on stage. But in the studio, 99 percent wasn't good enough paying $100 an hour and having to regret those 1 percent of mistakes forever after. It was easy to get it 99 percent but real difficult to get it 100 percent. Which is why some folks make the big bucks as in-demand studio musicians.
At least with a home studio, it isn't so expensive if a person of limited talent wants to take forever getting it 100 percent "the old fashioned way".
