Which sequencer has the BEST midi implementation?

[mojkarma]

"As said, in this particular case it's a bit more of an effort than it would be in SX.
On the upside, you'll be able to insert further things in your routing, say, a velocity limiter or expander."

Well, this particular case is what almost anybody will have to do if he wants to program drums in logic.

However, thank you very much for your explanation. I will try it out.

[SJ_Digriz]

As one of the resident Cubase Zealots I'd like to offer a couple of comments.

Although sometimes overstated, most of Saschas complaints are valid.

But, the real interface problems for Cubase aren't with the main editors or the project window. It's all the damn buried configuration interfaces. There are a bazillion of them. They are slapped together in a hurry, they have names on stuff that give you almost no indication what the settings are for etc...

The 2 things that Sascha brings up about the mixer that would be nice (and hopefully on the way) are the ability to freely move channels on the mixers and configurable extended views. I would prefer that they be saved as presets so we can make as many as we want instead of restricting it to three linked ones. However, in operation this has rarely caused me any slowdowns. Also, moveable inserts is on the way too according to a post on the Nuendo board.

Ok, down to MIDI editing (which is the real point of this thread). I have a good deal of external gear and I use VST synths and sfz+. First VST/32 5.1 was VASTLY superior to SX for MIDI purposes. But even so, the MIDI editors themselves in Cubase are excellent. Also, the workspaces are "OK, but not great yet" to have multiple views of the MIDI editors. For VST automation it can be clunky if you want to automate from MIDI controllers.

There are way to many routing capabilites that can be accomplished with the send inserts and the Transformer to discuss here. But it is an EXTREMELY powerful combination. Again, the Transformer dialog suffers from the insane interface design that bogs Cubase down. But those aren't workflow issues for long. You make your presets and use them. It's not like you have to fight with it every time.

I can't compare to Logic because I haven't used it in ages(and since it's now Mac only, I won't be using it ever again). I can compare to Tracktion/Sonar/Live. If you want to seriously be a MIDI editing fool, then only Sonar approaches what Cubase offers. You DO however have to spend some time to figure out how the interfaces are setup(true for logic as well). Once you do that, the daily workflow isn't as bad as maybe it is sounding here.

[Sascha Franck]

Well, this particular case is what almost anybody will have to do if he wants to program drums in logic.

Not at all.
I just use one drumsampler and get away with it. No need to route to any further sources.
OK, most often I will use two instances (one for drums, one for percussive things). But that's about it.
Splitting individual instruments to various sound sources admittedly IS a rather complicated task in Logic, especially when you're not used to it.
But (and I do quite some drum programming), I seriously can't remember the last time I had to do this. And I don't know much other people doing so either. Most of them prefer using dedicated drum samplers and get away easier with all the various tasks.

Oh, and while we're at drum programming: Logics quantizing options are incredibly superior to anything else I know... no dedicated drum editor will ever compensate for that. At least not when it comes to my way of working.

[kritikon]

Once you do that, the daily workflow isn't as bad as maybe it is sounding here.

Hear, hear.

Sascha obviously likes Logic - there ain't no arguing with that. Some of us like Cubase - there ain't no arguing that either.

So Sascha or the Cubase people aren't "right" - for me Logic was always completely and utterly unintuitive and unfathomable. Nothing ever seemed to be done in a straight-forward way, all the features I wanted were hidden or background ones, and all the esoteric silly ones were upfront. And Sascha thinks the same about Cubase. Cubase isn't any less easy to use than Logic Sascha - it all depends on how you personally work and actually look at programming and sequencing. Many many years ago it used to be an almost generally accepted fact that Cubase was the one for midi people, and Logic was for the players - and depending on which camp you were in, you did things in completely different ways. Both hosts have changed alot, but I think there is still a leftover from those days in the way you approach working in either host.

The plain fact is that Cubase still sells an awful lot of units to those that aren't necessarily instrumentally gifted - it really does have an effect on how you approach compiling a track, and Cubase must be doing some of that right to attract those buyers. It will never be perfect, but then neither will Logic.

Sure SX does some things in a silly way, but I'd rather that than the halfassed upside down way Logic does alot of things

And the original question was about midi - and I still think it's true that Cubase still has the legacy of being a midi-programmer's host. Logic was never that, and probably still isn't, although I'm sure it tries (bless it )

[flex42]

Oh, and while we're at drum programming: Logics quantizing options are incredibly superior to anything else I know...

I'd love to know what Logic offers here (in comparison to Cubase). I am afraid i might be missing something as 99% of my fav producers (house+techno) seem to be using Logic.

[ericj23]

the original poster asked for the best midi implementation on the PC - so we shouldn't even be mentioning logic

it's just sasha can't help himself



it is very nice tho

[spaceman]

the original poster asked for the best midi implementation on the PC - so we shouldn't even be mentioning logic

it's just sasha can't help himself

it is very nice tho

I'm looking for a PC version, so it's definitely an informative discussion

[Kalamata Kid]

Getting back on the subject. Is Sonar 4 CAL with 500 files better than Cubase 2 (or 3) Logical editor with only a few presets. Granted the Logical Editor is easier to learn versus the CAL which is more difficult to learn but is more flexible and more capable?

[Sascha Franck]

I'd love to know what Logic offers here (in comparison to Cubase). I am afraid i might be missing something as 99% of my fav producers (house+techno) seem to be using Logic.

You have visible control of ALL quantize settings of ALL your parts at ANY time in Logic. There's no way to get even close to this in any other sequencer I know of.
I'll post a descriptive screenshot if you like.

[flex42]

so it's a gui thing basically? no "magic" swing/shuffle options that couldn't be done in Cubase?
screenshot isn't really needed as i won't be switching to mac - even though Logic seems to a great program...thanks though!

[flex42]

for example, what's a 16B quantization in Logic (i've read that Steve Bug uses that mostly)?

[René]

Amazing thread! Sascha and SJ_Digriz representing the german powers, I doubt Applots and B0rgz could have better representatives... yikes if I'd only know Sonar better I could show you guys it eats your producer-wannabe hosts alive on any sunday morning. Too bad I just use it to make music

Anyways, what was this thread about? Ah yes. The best MIDI implementation. It was in Cakewalk 3. I wrote like 20349820394 songs with it.


-René

[DHR53]

I just discovered a feature in Logic that splits the midi notes to separate tracks based on pitch.. so you can take a midi drum pattern (all on one track) and split it into mutiple tracks... Now that's pretty cool!

[mandolarian]

Yeah, but does it have a realistic drunk drummer mode like my host?

[jackson]

for example, what's a 16B quantization in Logic (i've read that Steve Bug uses that mostly)?

A mild swing quantized to 16th notes. It's nice, but for my house, I often start with 16C(stronger swing), and make manual adjustments for a particular "groove".

I'm trying to switch to Cubase right now, and I'm having a real hard time of it.