Which sequencer has the BEST midi implementation?

[bugs]

Cubase

[pljones]

Ah well. Can't blame me for trying.

I keep trying Tracktion... I keep thinking the feature set looks good and it should work for me... It's just not clicking. I have to admit, it took a while with Muzys (that vaguely alien user interface that Jo came up with was platform neutral in a special way ). But I guess I don't need to leave Muzys as much as I needed to leave Jazz++.

P5V2 looks like it could work but I just didn't have the patience to spend on it, either. The demo - at least, I hope it's the demo... - was rather too restrictive for me to feel I would really be able to see if it was suitable. <edit>Just read the later comment about its MIDI editing: doesn't sound like it's a demo limitation, then! /sigh/</edit>

I guess the best bit of Muzys was getting Computer Muzys onto the CM cover CD! Essentially an unrestricted demo - in that all the features were there just some were a bit limited. I guess the cut down versions of Cubase are intended to provide a similar entry path (but I doubt any are available for six quid...). Is there anything similar for P5V2?

[pljones]

I didn't double post...

[Rednroll]

I'm a midi Ninja, and I too have been having a hard time finding my weapon of choice that fits all my needs. I think part of my problem is that when I first started doing midi sequencing, the first program I used was Opcode's Studio Vision on the MAC. I then jumped from MAC and went to PC, and luckily for me Opcode released a PC version of Vision, and it was business as usual for me. Of course, then Gibson purchased Opcode and ended up firing all the Opcode programmers and development stopped on my favorite Midi sequencer. Development stopped on that program 6 years ago, and I still am having a hard time finding a program that does midi sequencing with the ease of use and all the features that Vision has. So I'm still using it, by having a seperate PC with Windows 98 on it, and syncing it together through MTC, and Midi Beat clock with my DAW WinXP machine. I'm still looking for a true replacement for Vision, especially since VSTi's opens up so much more sound creation options at a more affordable price than all my external sound modules, but want to use both in conjunction with each other. It sounds like I need to look at Cubase again, the last time I looked it was Cubase 5.0. I did try out Project 5 v2 and I do like it's midi functionality. One major problem is that it has no native midi out support and is designed for VSTi's only, thus no external hardware sound modules, unless you use a plugin that a user created. I heard a lot of the Programmers from Opcode went to Logic, and I gave that a shot, up to v4.0, but the learning curve was pretty steep, even for me for someone that has a pretty good understanding of how midi works. Other people did recommend Digital performer to me, but I really want to use Rewire to work with my DAW of choice and my midi sequencer of choice, so having a program on a MAC and another on a PC, kind of breaks the Rewire capabilities, plus I'm trying to cut down on the number of computers I have in my studio and not increase it. My plan is to look into Sonar and Cubase as possible solutions once again. It just pains me to see all these possible solutions available and none of them seem to have a simple user interface along with all the Ninja features needed for my preferences. I mean, hey Midi has only been around for 20 plus years now, are all these apps hoping it just disappears where they don't feel midi features aren't important anymore to spend time on developing?

I tried to push the Sony folks on working more on developing the midi features in Acid, but I think that's part of the reason they banned me from their forums, just because I was pointing out the midi limitations currently in that program. They keep telling me Acid is a loop sequencer first and foremost and making it a stronger loop sequencer is where it's development is headed. So about 2 years ago now, I told then they need to develop "Midi Forge", so they can develop a full featured midi sequencer that can be rewired with Acid.

Anyways, I'm glad to hear I'm not alone in the quest for the perfect midi sequencer program. Please let me know, if you find the ultimate solution. I'm gonna try out Sonar and Cubase, if I can find a Demo somewhere and post my findings.

[original flipper]

HI

Digital performer/Logic on the Mac both look good for Midi, but I wonder about stability with Logic?

I found Logic very easy to pick up, especially the midi side of things - the enviroment and multi output routing via aux objects was what freaked me out!

I think whatever host you settle on irrelative of possible midi limitations will eventually become comfortable.

The luxury most people have is that they do not earn a living from using a sequencer - perhaps people should imagine this as a motivator to just get something-ANYTHING and just make music, otherwise you just skirt around forever in a state of confusion bemoaning how much a compromise you have to take to do this or that.

If you (this is not aimed at anyone in particular) was told 'here is £10,000 - this is the remit, go make 1 hour of music and bring it to me in 3 months' - would you not simply go out tomorrow and buy a host and get on with things?

The thing is in 3 months time you would know that sequencer VERY WELL and be reasonable comfortable with it as well.

We are spoilt for choice which causes an endless cycle of confusion - because many people want IT ALL-which = lots of software-no music.

I don't necessarily exclude myself from that group, though I am trying to lighten up!

Flipper.

[Kalamata Kid]

This is an important issue for me as I improvise and like to experiment with midi. I hope everyone is comparing Sonar 4 with Cubase SX3.

There are over 500 CAL files around where as there are very few presets in the Cubase Logical Editor.

CAL language is difficult for the non programmer. The Cubase Logical editor is also very difficult to understand.

CAL give you more flexibility over the Logical editor.

In the 90’s there was Cadenza Sequencer which had a extremely flexible and extremely easy to learn midi editor. Why did no one copy this format?

I hope this debate continues as I would like to here both sides to this very important issue.

[CosmicHuman]

********************MUZYS*************************

Muzys is all you could ever need-nothing even comes close!
You can get a free version with Computer Music Magazine-it is limited to only 5 VST's per project, but they can be mixed down to audio and exported, or saved as MIDI files and then exported to another host-a good way around that little stumbling block. The full version may be getting re-released soon......

[kritikon]

For me, the best one for midi was CubaseVST 5.1
There are one or two improvements in SX, but on the whole, I found Cubase had actually gone backwards a bit on the midi side of things.

CAL language is difficult for the non programmer. The Cubase Logical editor is also very difficult to understand.

I agree whole-heartedly...the Logical editor in VST was never perfect, but the new one in SX is worse IMO. However, it is still a very powerful midi editing tool - someone mentioned presets...to me, the idea of presets is a bit of a moot point. I never have a situation where I actually use the Logical editor for the same thing twice. The odd times you do, I find enough presets available.

It's powerful enough that if you want to do something obscure like convert every second note between only C2 -> D4 between the velocity values of 64->100 and convert them into controller messages, but delay them by 2 ticks so that they play before the coresponding notes and then invert them...you can do it. It's relatively easy to convert, say, notes into midi volume messages so that your midi sequence can be used as a source for a gate etc.

It pisses me off that Steinberg left behind things like the IPS - what a beast that was - you could play Wavestation-like sequences from one note press on any keyboard - and have midi LFOs and ramps etc to modulate any midi parameter. What they were thinking when they ditched it is beyond me. Which is why I recommend VST versions of Cubase. In fact I'd recommend even older versions such as 3.0 on an Atari. Hugely advanced midi capabilities on a machine that was noted for absolute timing with midi. (but no audio of course )

If midi is really your thing of choice, I'm serious when I say it'd be worth considering getting an older version of CubaseVST on the cheap and use that for all your complicated midi work, and then transfer over to any other host of choice to integrate it with audio work (not necessarily SX either...although that's my personal one of choice). There's not an awful lot of difference in audio hosts nowadays, apart from workflow and GUI, but I still feel old Cubase is unsurpassed for midi.

[KCC3.14]

For me Cubase SX is the best for midi. One big screen just for midi, drum editor/drum maps etc. I also find midi in Live not very comfortable to work with.
Now I use Live and Cubase together:

Make my loops/parts in Cubase.
When I have the loops I want to work with, I bounce them to wav's, import in Live to do the arrangement.
Then to finish the track, I rewire Live to Cubase SX again to do the mix.

[Kalamata Kid]

Hello Kritikon, KCC3.14 and All,

I appreciate the time you spent to help.

I am trying to decide to go with Sonar 4 or Cubase SX 3.

I suppose that learning to use Logical Editor must be easier than learning CAL language. And each has its strong points. What I want is editing power with minimum effort.

With over 500 CAL files around I suppose I can do just about every possible midi edit there is. The problem is reviewing all the CAL files to find one that will do the trick.

I have tried to learn the ins and out of the Logical editor with very little success. I must admit that that the capabilities of the Logical Editor pointed out by Kritikon (see below) is very impressive.

“ It's powerful enough that if you want to do something obscure like convert every second note between only C2 -> D4 between the velocity values of 64->100 and convert them into controller messages, but delay them by 2 ticks so that they play before the corresponding notes and then invert them...you can do it. It's relatively easy to convert, say, notes into midi volume messages so that your midi sequence can be used as a source for a gate etc. “

How difficult was it for you to learn to use the Logical Editor?

I also often wonder why the big music software developers do so many things right but with such great hind sight they regress on some area reducing capabilities or complicating procedures. They all could have copied the Cadenza midi editor, but no, lets makes thing more difficult for the user. I cant figure it out. Oh well!

So my choice is Sonar or Cubase SX but not both or a third program.

BTW I understand that new features added to the Logical Editor in Cubase SX 3? Is this so? Any new presets in SX3? Presets are good in that they can me edited. Is there a source or sources for Logical Editor presets similar to where CAL files are offered?

If a 3rd party developer would develop a MIDI plugin for MIDI editing for all hosts please copy Cadenza and also look into Passport Designs Master Trax Pro. Ok, so I’m dreaming!

[mojkarma]

Kalamata Kid,

I generally think that you shouldn't make your decision only with the number of presets in the logical editor on mind.
I have both programs and I can tell you that for the "normal" user it is impossible to program the CAL in Sonar. It is unsupported. There is not a single word in the manual about how to program it. And BTW, you are a musician, not a programer. Having that on mind, the logical editor in Cubase would, I guess, do the job.
I generally don't understand why do you talk only about the logical editor (or CAL). They are both just tools that you need from time to time.
At this time Cubase just have the far better features than sonar. Cakewalk didn't change the midi side of the program almost 10 years. There is really hardly anything new in sonar4 that was not in proaudio6 for example (with the exception of the drum editor and maybe something else).
Once you become used to work with the miditools in cubase, you will do the job far quicker and above all, more confortable than in sonar.

[SparkySpark]

Why not Energy XT or Logic (as they are so modular) or plain old Pro 24 (there is NOTHING going on behind the scenes there!)?

/SparkySpark

[spaceman]

although I'm a sonar user, I think cubase's midi implementation is easier to work with.. although once you get used to sonar it's as powerful as anything else (and don't forget CAL)

[mojkarma]

although I'm a sonar user, I think cubase's midi implementation is easier to work with.. although once you get used to sonar it's as powerful as anything else (and don't forget CAL)

Of course, the implementation is in both programs more or less the same.
The difference is IMHO in the great improvement in the workflow that cubase offers regarding midi:
mute tool, split tool, multiple controller lanes, resizeable controller lanes, info overview where you can very fast edit numbers just by draging with the cursor up or down (if you set it so in the preferences) and a lot more.
As I said, there is hardly a difference regarding midi between sonar4 and the antecessor from 10 years ago. Difficult to understand for a program that started as a midi only application !

[Sascha Franck]

If you REALLY care about MIDI editing, especially in terms of quantizing, note editing and so on, try to find a second hand Windows version of Logic.
In case you need better plugin control in addition, add EnergyXT to it.

You'll end up with the most comprehensible MIDI engine there is (ok, no MIDI plugins, but that's about the only shortcoming) and in addition you'll get what still is happening to be the most efficient audio engine too.

And yes, I'm serious about this.
I tried to switch to Cubase SX and simply can't because of its lame implementation of anything MIDI related, especially when it comes to quantizing and MIDI CC control. And of course the bloated UI along with the inefficient audio engine add a great portion of dissapointment too.