MIDI FX ?

[NAS]

Just wondering from a devs point of view which would be more useful to users ?

Oh any because's would be helpful too cheers.

[NAS]

50 looked and 5 voted i guess it's not that important anyway

[tlr]

50 looked and 5 voted i guess it's not that important anyway

For me this is important! I prefer VST Module Architecture and VST. I'm on Cubase SX, and MFX doesn't work well with it. VST Module Architecture is Cubase/Nuendo only, which leaves only VST if you want to be portable.

/Daniel

[isdjan]

I'd say both. If MFX is the thing I think (like - step sequencers, CC generators, arpeggiators and so on), I'd be quite happy to see some, because there are *so many* VST(i)s already

[haydxn]

so far every time i've seen MFX plugins i just think "why aren't they just VST so that all hosts can use them?". i've never had anything with mfx support except the demo of sonar, and my small tinkerings didn't suggest anything revolutionary that couldn't be done in vst.

i guess perhaps it's possible to have multiple midi output ports from an MFX plug tho? maybe? hmmm

but yeah, i choose vst any day-o-t-week

[sluggo]

question: how do vst midi fx work with vsti? Tracks only allow one vst at a time (I think), so it's either a vst midi fx or vsti. With mfx, you can put the midi fx before the vsti so that the mfx midi is routed to the vsti.

I'm in the mfx camp, but can I be convinced otherwise.

s.

[tlr]

question: how do vst midi fx work with vsti? Tracks only allow one vst at a time (I think), so it's either a vst midi fx or vsti. With mfx, you can put the midi fx before the vsti so that the mfx midi is routed to the vsti.

VST Module Architecture plugins work the way you want aswell. VST plugins do not, hence my preference for the former.

[kevink]

so far every time i've seen MFX plugins i just think "why aren't they just VST so that all hosts can use them?". i've never had anything with mfx support except the demo of sonar, and my small tinkerings didn't suggest anything revolutionary that couldn't be done in vst.

Sonar doesn't seem to allow you to use VSTs as MIDI transformers. You can use them as softsynths or audio effects, within a wrapper, but MIDI->VSTmidifilter->VST/DXi isn't possible. So when I want to write MIDI manipulators like "Orchid" (see http://www.paralogos.com/music/ ) I write them as MFX, because it works natively in Sonar and with a wrapper in Cubase. The problem is that Cakewalk hasn't been maintaining the MFX SDK worth a damn. What the world really needs is a VST wrapper for MFX. Hmmm. Maybe that's the next tool I write "in my copious spare time"...

[scamme]

What's MFX?

[jtxx000]

question: how do vst midi fx work with vsti? Tracks only allow one vst at a time (I think), so it's either a vst midi fx or vsti. With mfx, you can put the midi fx before the vsti so that the mfx midi is routed to the vsti.

I'm in the mfx camp, but can I be convinced otherwise.

s.

ahh, you must be using a cubase sucks type host. a more flexible host will let you route the midi out from a vst to the midi in of another. take a look at eXT and tracktion for two examples of hosts that allow you to do this.

[NAS]

Cubase allows you to aswell.

[jtxx000]

well in that case an acid sucks host.

[NAS]

[sluggo]

yeah, that is what sucks about all this stuff. Incompatibilites. I have Live and ext which allow for more modular routing. But I prefer to compose in Project5. Live is okay, I don't like ext as a sequencer (love the modular routing though). So I can't put ext in Project5 to host a dxi, because ext doesn't host dxi. etc etc, you know the story I'm sure. As far as I know, Console is the only vst -> dxi adapter, and it sucks donkeys. Otherwise I would be content with vst midi and ext. As it stands, I prefer Project5 and mfx.

NAS, you can be assured that Cakewalk users would prefer mfx for the reasons stated above.

s

[goofrider]

What the world really needs is a VST wrapper for MFX.

Steinberg has an MFXwrapper available for free.

ftp://ftp.steinberg.net/download/pc/Cub ... te_108.zip