Muting a track does not mute its MIDI output

[Ch00rD]

If one track is routing its MIDI notes to another track, the mute button does *not* mute the output of MIDI notes to that track:



This seems to be either a bug, or a very severe design flaw, since the mute button is supposed to "[m]ute the track output", while the note output to another track is selected under "elect output for the track" (emphasis added).

[goatgirl]

You can't mute MIDI as it make no noise. If you read the output as audio output , it makes more sense, as audio can be muted but still pass on note information. This is especially usefull in situations involving side chaining.

[UncleMarty]

The mute button on the mixer works exactly like a mute on a real mixing console, it doesn't stop any midi or prevent anything else happening further back in the chain. If you want to stop midi being sent then you have to address it at either the midi receiver or mute the other tracks or some other way.

[Ch00rD]

You can't mute MIDI as it make no noise. If you read the output as audio output , it makes more sense, as audio can be muted but still pass on note information. This is especially usefull in situations involving side chaining.

I strongly disagree - of course one can mute MIDI: you simply stop the MIDI messages from being transmitted. This can also be done in many other hosts and hardware MIDI sequencers.

I do agree that it would make more sense if you'd read "output" as "audio output, but that simply means that the information provided is incorrect.

[Ch00rD]

The mute button on the mixer works exactly like a mute on a real mixing console, it doesn't stop any midi or prevent anything else happening further back in the chain. If you want to stop midi being sent then you have to address it at either the midi receiver or mute the other tracks or some other way.

But it is not a "real mixing console", it's a sequencer.

I know I can mute the receiving track, but that would mute its audio output, while I don't want the audio output to be cut off abruptly - I simply want to temporarily stop MIDI notes being sent to the receiving track.

Also, handling this at the receiving track is severly limiting; in this manner I can't use several tracks sending different MIDI notes to a single instrument, and then mute the notes coming from individual sending tracks separately.

So, I maintain that this is either a bug, or (more likely, perhaps) a very severe design flaw.

[goatgirl]

I strongly disagree - of course one can mute MIDI: you simply stop the MIDI messages from being transmitted. This can also be done in many other hosts and hardware MIDI sequencers.
.

I strongly disagree. If its intention was to stop MIDI too, then it should say stop output.

As CnuTram as mentioned the MIDI is taken from further back in the chain, pre fader. The mute is soley for the audio coming from the fader.

[goatgirl]

I would suggest that a note reciever would be better, but would not allow you to merge multiple midi tracks. There has been a call for a MIDI merge device, which may solve this problem. Its often requested, but an additional feature request to the team may speed things up

[dom@bitwig]

As CnuTram as mentioned the MIDI is taken from further back in the chain, pre fader. The mute is soley for the audio coming from the fader.

That's correct, nothing to add!
If you wish to mute the notes, mute the notes or the clip that contains them.

Cheers,
Dom

[Ch00rD]

I strongly disagree - of course one can mute MIDI: you simply stop the MIDI messages from being transmitted. This can also be done in many other hosts and hardware MIDI sequencers.
.

I strongly disagree. If its intention was to stop MIDI too, then it should say stop output.

That's merely a semantic argument, and a very poor one, imho - a similar issue exists with using the solo button, and you can't seriously argue that 'solo' necessarily applies to audio only.

If solo would apply only to audio, then solo-ing a track outputting MIDI notes but no audio would mute all other tracks - which it doesn't:


The more important question here, imho, is whether it would be more useful if the mute and solo buttons would affect MIDI output. And since I'm quite convinced that the answer to that question is positive (as has been my experience from using many other sequencers), I maintain that this is a severe design flaw.

[Ch00rD]

If you wish to mute the notes, mute the notes or the clip that contains them.

But muting a clip or individual notes in it can't be mapped to a controller, as far as I can see - which makes such methods vastly inferior to muting the track output.

Btw, your usage of the phrase "mute the notes" only reinforces my earlier argument. If notes can be "muted", then muting a track's output should also mute the notes it sends out.

[goatgirl]

Yes, I can argue that the solo applies to the audio only. As previously been stated the MIDI is taken before the fader. The mute is for the fader only. It just like turning down the track volume. What does the volume fader have to do with the MIDI signal?

I sympathise that you have special needs to combine many MIDI tracks, but there is not a simple way to do this, without a MIDI merge tool. You could use extra tracks that just had note receivers and route those MIDI tracks to the track you want to control. That way you can simply turn on/off the note receivers at will.

[takaii]

Just alt+a and disable the channel insteed. Mute is for audio not midi.

[Ch00rD]

Yes, I can argue that the solo applies to the audio only.

Sure, you can argue that this is how things happen to work in Bitwig; but what I meant is that you can't make a similar *semantic* argument, like you did above with regard to the terms "mute output" versus "stop output" - you may argue that "mute" implies silence rather than absence of any output, but the term "solo" does not have a similar (semantic) implication.

I sympathise that you have special needs to combine many MIDI tracks, but there is not a simple way to do this, without a MIDI merge tool. You could use extra tracks that just had note receivers and route those MIDI tracks to the track you want to control. That way you can simply turn on/off the note receivers at will.

Thanks for your suggestion for a workaround, I will experiment with using note receivers on additional tracks. It does seem like a *very* convoluted approach, though - and I still fail to see how it could negatively affect anything if the mute and solo buttons would affect MIDI as well as audio. So I guess I will have to submit a feature request to change this (although Dom's reply does not indicate any chance of this being changed), and use other hosts instead of Bitwig, which has completely failed to impress me so far.

[Ch00rD]

Just alt+a and disable the channel insteed.

Thanks for your suggestion, but that method suffers from a similar drawback as muting clips or notes: there is no way to bind this to a controller, as far as I can see. (I would be glad to be proven wrong, of course!)

Mute is for audio not midi.

Well, many other applications *do* use mute and solo functions that affect both MIDI and audio, and there are MIDI sequencers that don't even have any audio features, but still use mute and solo functions for individual tracks. So that's merely how Bitwig does things, not an universal truth.

[goatgirl]

Sure, you can argue that this is how things happen to work in Bitwig; but what I meant is that you can't make a similar *semantic* argument, like you did above with regard to the terms "mute output" versus "stop output" - you may argue that "mute" implies silence rather than absence of any output, but the term "solo" does not have a similar (semantic) implication.

Both mute and solo are shortcuts for the volume fader. When engaged, it has the effect of turning the fader to minimum. Likewise, Solo has the effect of turning every other fader to minimum, allowing you to hear only the audio of the track(s) you are soloing. To me, this make semantic sense.

Are you really suggesting that the volume fader affects the MIDI data too?