Digital Performer still missing instrument tracks?

[Dúnedain]

If you are a Logic or FL Studio user then you probably take it for granted, but Digital Performer 8 did not had it: instrument tracks. That is, the plug in is on the same track as your midi notes are. So you have just 1 lane in your arrange windows and just 1 mixing strip in your mixer. So does DP9 already has this?

[ObsoleteAcc99]

Since DP9 is not out, how could we know the answer to your question?

[lfm]

As I remember it was more like Cubase Instrument channels(rack) or like Sonar Synth Rack - you load instrument (into a rack slot) and then apply midi tracks to those instances of instruments.

It was a couple of months ago I trialed DP8, so don't remember.

For sure, you use virtual instruments in DP.

The unusual part of DP was that first level of tracks is not quite like tracks. You move over to sequences and then you recognize yourself again from other daws.

[Dúnedain]

Yes, DP8 is indeed more like Cubase and the older versions of Sonar. Was already aware of that. I prefer how FL Studio and Logic handle this. It makes life so much easier.

[ObsoleteAcc99]

Yes, DP8 is indeed more like Cubase and the older versions of Sonar. Was already aware of that. I prefer how FL Studio and Logic handle this. It makes life so much easier.

Cubase and Studio One have superb dedicated instrument tracks also. Doesn't even Sonar have this now?

Even PT does.

[HobbyCore]

If you are a Logic or FL Studio user then you probably take it for granted, but Digital Performer 8 did not had it: instrument tracks. That is, the plug in is on the same track as your midi notes are. So you have just 1 lane in your arrange windows and just 1 mixing strip in your mixer. So does DP9 already has this?

You could always go over to motunation and be told how the way DP does it is better. Reasons including 'It's the opposite of Logic' and 'It's done it that way for years and I'm used to it'.



edit: There are benefits to them being split, particularly when you use v-racks and chunks. I don't do anything with midi though, so I could not tell you what the benefits are. For real, ask on motunation.

[lfm]

Yes, DP8 is indeed more like Cubase and the older versions of Sonar. Was already aware of that. I prefer how FL Studio and Logic handle this. It makes life so much easier.

Cubase and Studio One have superb dedicated instrument tracks also. Doesn't even Sonar have this now?

Even PT does.

Sonar's little wizard dialog let you do a simple instrument track if you want instead of separate midi track. Synth makes a slot in synth rack either way.

I don't know what is so superb about Cubase instrument tracks, it took them a while to even allow multiout VST instrument - that was all through Instrument channels as I recall. And slots in Instruments channels are limited depending on version you run.

And StudioOne is a mess, just making extra mixer slots in mixer from extra outs, not tracks to do automation as I recall. And wanting to do a arpeggiator before a synth you have to serialize tracks to do that.

In my taste Sonar is bettter than any of those two in this regard. Even freezing synths is better in Sonar - you get audio nicely on all synth outs. Cubase is really joke with these hidden tracks you cannot do anything with. Cubase is just a series of patches over the years - it really feels that way. Nothing is thought through and reworked.

To load synths - Mixcraft is really the tool to look at how it's done. Freezing is not as good as Sonar, but how they load synths in Instruments tracks and easily allow to use extra outs, arpeggiator and other midi plugins - decide volume, key range and transpose right there where the synth is loaded. Only thing I wish for is that every frozen synths outs get it's own audio - now it goes to the common parent folder.

[ObsoleteAcc99]

Yes, DP8 is indeed more like Cubase and the older versions of Sonar. Was already aware of that. I prefer how FL Studio and Logic handle this. It makes life so much easier.

Cubase and Studio One have superb dedicated instrument tracks also. Doesn't even Sonar have this now?

Even PT does.

Sonar's little wizard dialog let you do a simple instrument track if you want instead of separate midi track. Synth makes a slot in synth rack either way.

I don't know what is so superb about Cubase instrument tracks, it took them a while to even allow multiout VST instrument - that was all through Instrument channels as I recall. And slots in Instruments channels are limited depending on version you run.

And StudioOne is a mess, just making extra mixer slots in mixer from extra outs, not tracks to do automation as I recall. And wanting to do a arpeggiator before a synth you have to serialize tracks to do that.

In my taste Sonar is bettter than any of those two in this regard. Even freezing synths is better in Sonar - you get audio nicely on all synth outs. Cubase is really joke with these hidden tracks you cannot do anything with. Cubase is just a series of patches over the years - it really feels that way. Nothing is thought through and reworked.

To load synths - Mixcraft is really the tool to look at how it's done. Freezing is not as good as Sonar, but how they load synths in Instruments tracks and easily allow to use extra outs, arpeggiator and other midi plugins - decide volume, key range and transpose right there where the synth is loaded. Only thing I wish for is that every frozen synths outs get it's own audio - now it goes to the common parent folder.

well we can agree to disagree. Studio one has the exact instrument track you are asking and it's very simple to enable extra outputs.. I LIKE the way by default that it's hidden. Cubase now has multi timbral instrument tracks. The audio/mixer/midi all combined on the one track like logic. This is what you mean right?

[lfm]

well we can agree to disagree. Studio one has the exact instrument track you are asking and it's very simple to enable extra outputs.. I LIKE the way by default that it's hidden. Cubase now has multi timbral instrument tracks. The audio/mixer/midi all combined on the one track like logic. This is what you mean right?

Yes, S1 has this checkbox in mixer view - but you have no access to these outs in track view.
And using external midi gear in S1 is no fun at all - quite a few setting that need to be fixed before using it. I consider midi in S1 a disaster - just compare to other daws how much you have to configure to record midi, nobody make so much fuzz over that. With all that to configure - you really need track templates, but they did not think of that either.

About Cubase I just remember reading up on Cubase 7.5, running Element 7 - and if it still didn't exist multiout on instrument tracks or if it just were implemented I don't remember. To me it's strange separation of principles like they did it - VST Instrument channels(racks allowing multiout) compared to Instrument tracks(single stereo only). This is what I mean by that Cubase is a patchwork - they just add stuff with not so much thought.

Cakewalk did a good job just keeping one type of instrument handling - in my taste. And there is no cut down version limiting instrument/synth racks as Cubase do.

But as you say, I probably disagree with many folks liking S1 and Cubase. Cubase really work well, I think, but absolutely built for programmers, no fun to work in at all. I just ran Elements again after 6 months and forgot how to get access to different configuration parts(was checking what latency were taken care of and how well in a couple of daws).

[kelldammit]

Right, in S1, nothing re: the instrument track itself appears in the mixer...only the audio outputs of the instrument that's assigned to it. For most purposes it works pretty well, and the mechanisms for freeze and offline bounce are some of the best i've ever seen. The mixer and arrangment stay locked pretty well, until you throw multitimbrals and bussed folders into the mix, at which point, it gets wonky, but it's understandable, because they don't really correlate directly.

In terms of the OP, it's probably pretty unlikely that a consolidated instrument track will make an appearance in DP at this point. It wouldn't hurt to submit a feature request via techlink, though. If they don't know how much demand there is, they're not likely to bother.

Also, though the segregated midi/instrument tracks may seem archaic, as compared even to pt (hehe), the method to the madness comes into play when you consider how DP is fundamentally designed to work. That doesn't rule out the consolidated instrument track, but if you work in the realm where DP's real juice is, the potential benefit gets more and more marginal. Personally, i like the consistency of how it works, and the 1:1 relationship of the arrangement to the mixer.

It's not a snobbery thing or a pissing contest. Each way of going about things has its benefits and drawbacks. If you really want to get down to it, cubase, studio one, etc are ALL antiquated in that regard, because they have more than one track type at all!

[LawrenceF]

Yes, S1 has this checkbox in mixer view - but you have no access to these outs in track view.

You don't need them in the track view because they're already on every instrument UI. It only takes two mouse clicks to get to the multi-out assignments from anywhere...



If you meant access as in "mixing them" that's in the Inspector. You can switch any midi track to any multi-out, bring any mixer channel from that instrument into the Inspector.

[lfm]

Yes, S1 has this checkbox in mixer view - but you have no access to these outs in track view.

You don't need them in the track view because they're already on every instrument UI. It only takes two mouse clicks to get to the multi-out assignments from anywhere...

If I didn't need them, I would not object, would I?
You have to switch to selecting from mixer view suddenly, not from the tracks before you.

The tracks there and the automation on each is nice - feels logical having that view.

And trying to use Faderport for a while - it was very confusing with different number of slots in mixer compared to track view. Next/Prev track - where am I now. Not thought through either that one of their own products really fit in.

To me S1 is a battle, and bit like Cubase. Eventually you can do what you want - but it's programmer products both of them in my taste. Not even curious what V3.0 might bring - lost call.

But that's me...

[LawrenceF]

Sorry, I didn't mean "literally you".

I was thinking that maybe because they're always on the plugin UI and easily accessible there, that maybe (dunno) they thought they didn't really need them on the arrange tracks also.

Thanks LFM.

[hibidy]

If you are a Logic or FL Studio user then you probably take it for granted, but Digital Performer 8 did not had it: instrument tracks. That is, the plug in is on the same track as your midi notes are. So you have just 1 lane in your arrange windows and just 1 mixing strip in your mixer. So does DP9 already has this?

You could always go over to motunation and be told how the way DP does it is better. Reasons including 'It's the opposite of Logic' and 'It's done it that way for years and I'm used to it'.

Don't miss it one bit!

[machinesworking]

How exactly would V-Racks work with a VI that had MIDI in it's track?
What other DAW has something like Chunks and V-Racks?
Rhetorical I know, but if you use Chunks and V-Racks then MIDI being separate from the instrument makes perfect sense, if you never use either, then it seems like DP is "behind the times". Basically if you want to get the most out of DP then using to some degree Chunks and V-Racks is a big part of the workflow, if you don't use them, then a huge portion of DP is missing.
It's a little like asking why Live doesn't have the sort of advanced audio editing features that Pro Tools does. It's not how the program was created and it's not what it's developed to do.

In order to implement MIDI on an instrument track a new track type would have to be implemented. V-Racks do not interact with tracks, they accept MIDI and that's it, so an instrument with it's own embedded MIDI track like all the other DAWs would mess up V-Racks.

The idea here is to keep all instruments and most FX in V-Racks so you can use Sequence Chunks as building blocks in a song not unlike Scenes in Live, or use Chunks as whole variations on a song, different mix downs etc. This is why DP is still popular among film composers, two hour long 'pieces' can be broken down into variations on a theme etc, without the huge CPU hit that Live would have or the massive cumbersome timeline that Logic/cubase etc, would have.

Basically there are plenty of sound reasons why DP doesn't have a combined MIDI and instrument track, just as Logic has reasons for the Environment and Live has Session View, it's part of the way you work in DP.All this reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm-zWDaoCtI