What makes a DAW's midi editor good?

[Robert Randolph]

I've seen statements like "X's piano roll is so much better than Y" or "I couldn't use X's midi editor". So that has me curious...

What are some features or workflows that you expect in a good midi-editor/piano roll?

What are some features that you were surprised were missing from another DAW?

Specific examples between DAWs are appreciated.

[qtheerearranger]

This is all personal, because I personally love Abletons piano roll for its simplicity, but here is a user saying why fls piano roll is better than ableton.

[LawrenceF]

It's all pretty subjective imo. They all have things you can cherry pick as being great features, like FL's note grouping (I actually haven't seen that anywhere else) or it's great random seeding.

Some people focus more on what you can do quickly with the mouse while some others focus more on what you can do overall, like Cubase's Midi Logical Editor and it's multiple other midi editors. Some only have one editor. It has like, 5-6 midi editors.

[chk071]

It's very important for me to have a good piano roll. For me, it has to be clear and well-structured, the tools have to be easily accessible, like in Cubase or Studio One, stuff like copy paste, or duplicate have to be easy and straight forward, the resizing of events has to be easy, and intuitive... really, there's loads to mention. For me, it's, like, the heart of the whole DAW. If there's one thing which has to be straight forward, and working then that. I don't work much, or, at all with audio, so the midi part has to be working well. Cubase has the best piano roll i've worked with so far. Reaper was the worst (sorry peeps ). Studio One is decent i would say. I like the one in Cubase more, but it's ok, because it more or less works the same. Not quite as clear as Cubase's though, and the the tool selecting is a tad odd.

[Robert Randolph]

FWIW, I am aware that it's 'personal' and 'subjective'... that's info I'm looking for.

I want opinions and facts. I just want _information_.

[Robert Randolph]

It's very important for me to have a good piano roll. For me, it has to be clear and well-structured, the tools have to be easily accessible, like in Cubase or Studio One, stuff like copy paste, or duplicate have to be easy and straight forward, the resizing of events has to be easy, and intuitive... really, there's loads to mention. For me, it's, like, the heart of the whole DAW. If there's one thing which has to be straight forward, and working then that. I don't work much, or, at all with audio, so the midi part has to be working well. Cubase has the best piano roll i've worked with so far. Reaper was the worst (sorry peeps ). Studio One is decent i would say. I like the one in Cubase more, but it's ok, because it more or less works the same. Not quite as clear as Cubase's though, and the the tool selecting is a tad odd.

It would be helpful if you could clarify what exactly you do and don't like. What is missing from Reaper do you think? Why is Cubase's piano roll so good?

[chk071]

First of all, in Reaper, you don't have access to be able to quickly switch between the editing tools, if i remember correctly, it has been some time. I also didn't like the colour scheme, which didn't give much contrast, or clarity. I also remember that there was some confusion about the scrolling too. When i expected the piano roll, or the sequencer windows to scroll horizontally, it did increase the view on some command, while in other sequencers, it did the scroll thing, so there's also been some inconsistency in the operation. Don't remember which control it was, but, yeah, there was something odd about it. Also, i don't think, in general, that a program windows has to look like Windows 95 in 2016, which may not be important for some people, but it is important for me.

[LawrenceF]

FWIW, I am aware that it's 'personal' and 'subjective'... that's info I'm looking for.

I want opinions and facts. I just want _information_.

Oh yeah, sorry Robert. Yeah, Cubase (overall) is maybe hard to beat, but if you don't need all that, a lot of it goes unused. Comparitivey speaking, like compared to what I currently use, there's just so many different ways to attack midi there that you can't really restrict any discussion about it's editing to the piano roll.

One of the things I miss from Cubase is the ability to attack midi directly from literally anywhere, for example, to select a range of a midi clip and attack the notes beneath it directly, in arrange, without splitting the clip or anything else. I also found it's combination list + graphic editor to be really productive, to have both a list of midi events and the graphical representations, in the same view.

That's what I meant about "editor", that it has so many different midi editors. The drum editor for example allows sending individual midi pitches to individual midi ports or instruments and other handy things.

But yeah, if the discussion is limited to only the piano roll, there's better out there, like FL Studio.

[Sandy]

For me, a dedicated MIDI editor window makes life better. In Cubase or Logic and some other, you can select a region and then pop open a new window that lets you really see and do things better. Selecting and changing values is way easier.

So many sequencers brag about how it's "single window" and how that is laptop friendly. But when I use a laptop, I still like to open a dedicated window temporarily over my track view so I can do stuff. Having to expand a lane in order to do MIDI surgery is not "laptop-friendly" to me.

Live and Tracktion are not as good for me because you have to take your mouse and expand the track lane and then zoom in. Then you have to open the parameter lane and expand the overall view even more. It's a pain!

I miss the feature in Cubase where you can open several parameter lanes at once with the MIDI data also in view. Then, you can edit say, a sustain pedal AND velocity without switching views. This is good when you are editing the expression parameter and you are forced to goose the velocities to get the most out it.

I never got the hang of the Cubase Expression Maps. It seemed like a good idea, but setting up the maps were a pain in the ass. I wasn't sure if it felt like it was a labor savings concept.

Logic has good editing tools, though. Just by hitting the escape key, you can select what you need with a key command.

[LawrenceF]

For me, a dedicated MIDI editor window makes life better. In Cubase or Logic and some other, you can select a region and then pop open a new window that lets you really see and do things better. Selecting and changing values is way easier.

So many sequencers brag about how it's "single window" and how that is laptop friendly. But when I use a laptop, I still like to open a dedicated window temporarily over my track view so I can do stuff. Having to expand a lane in order to do MIDI surgery is not "laptop-friendly" to me.

True. I do think most if not all of them detach but I can't say that for sure, I haven't used them all, but most of the ones I have used or demoed can detach and float those editor windows.

There was a huge argument about that on the Cubase forum some time back where many users fought against the idea of docking, saying that they prefer floating windows, while never grasping that those windows do still float.

[Hink]

I have always liked Samp's PR, I really like the option to have each event's vertical size represent the velocity. I like this with multi-velocity samples because it sounds the instrument while dragging the height up and down allowing you to zero in on the sound you want. All other velocity options of course are available including freehand drawing and velocity having it's own window. Like most it also has different colors for different midi channels, when I used FL I found the colors to be too close and often confusing but this is not the case with Samp. The point was made about quick access to tools, samp has a great keystroke editor but by default the numbers above the letters on a keyboard open the tools. I have the number pad set up for note length which also changes the grid size when you change length, of course I have no 1/16 or 1/32 key so I have to be a bit playful with this. For me, 2=1/2, 3=triplet enabled, 4=1/4, 6=1/16, 8=1/8, 9=1/32 and .=dotted note enabled.

There are basic midi functions like remove overlaps, humanize, quantize, drum editor, score but tbh it is a bit bland to look at but it works well for me. TBH I do more recording of audio and recording of midi than working in the piano roll so Samp does have me covered. It doesn't have all the scoring , scales, chords and features like that from FL but I can zip around the piano roll quite fine and get back to my keyboard or better yet my guitar

[Azura]

First of all, in Reaper, you don't have access to be able to quickly switch between the editing tools, if i remember correctly, it has been some time.

With mouse modifiers, it is quicker than editing tools. But you can setup editing tools with custom actions if you want.

I also didn't like the colour scheme, which didn't give much contrast, or clarity.

There are tons of skins you can choose from.

I also remember that there was some confusion about the scrolling too. When i expected the piano roll, or the sequencer windows to scroll horizontally, it did increase the view on some command, while in other sequencers, it did the scroll thing, so there's also been some inconsistency in the operation. Don't remember which control it was, but, yeah, there was something odd about it.

It is really easy to customize it the way you are used to.

Also, i don't think, in general, that a program windows has to look like Windows 95 in 2016, which may not be important for some people, but it is important for me.

That's a matter of taste, so I won't argue on that one

Marc

[chk071]

With mouse modifiers, it is quicker than editing tools. But you can setup editing tools with custom actions if you want.

There are tons of skins you can choose from.

It is really easy to customize it the way you are used to.

Why is that not a surprise for me. See, a DAW for me has to work out of the box, the way i want it to. I neither want to set up custom actions, nor do i want to choose from a "ton of skins", neither i do want to waste time to customize the DAW the way i want it to, if it doesn't work the way i want it to. But, hey, each to his like. Nonetheless, this is exactly why i stopped using Reaper, because i would have to customize the cr** out of it to make it work for me. If it works for you, cool, it doesn't for me. No customization options, or mouse modifier in the world will change that. Actually, that's the part i dislike the most. A software has to work for me, i don't want to work hard to make it work for me.

[UncleAge]

PR falls mainly into 2 categories for me. Tools & Feel.

When it comes to tools and the way you access them I could get used to most daws except Tracktion. I never liked its inline implementation. I have only demo'ed FLS (old pc) over the years as I am on a Mac and prefer not to bootcamp, but I liked the tools and how they were laid out. It felt comfortable from the start. Over the years I have gotten used to Live's anemic set of tools. And only recently in Live 9 did they add a shortcut key for muting notes. It used to drive me nuts over the years because it's something I do a lot of. Anyway, this whole area for me would be pretty balanced across daws if all the functions were assignable by keyboard shortcut and that list was editable.

However the feel of each is very different. And this is going to sound a bit weird but the visual feedback when I select a note (group of notes) and the delay when dragging and the subsequent snap to whatever ppq or quantization that's set at the moment is an important factor. Really important for me for some reason. It is this, for lack of a better word, "feel" that leads me to prefer FLS. And it's this same feel that leaves me uninspired when I work with Reaper. I mean Reaper has an otherwise great set of tools to work with in the PR. And the team at Cockos listened to users and made big improvements to that area. And even though it's usable it's not my preferred PR at all.

None of my ratings are based on recent versions of any daw. But from my last impressions from usage or demos S1, Sonar, Reaper, Podium, eXT, Live and BWS are all kind of ok. I could get by with any of them. For me the standout is FLS. And the only real downer was Tracktion.

[andrew732]

And this is going to sound a bit weird but the visual feedback when I select a note (group of notes) and the delay when dragging and the subsequent snap to whatever ppq or quantization that's set at the moment is an important factor. Really important for me for some reason. It is this, for lack of a better word, "feel" that leads me to prefer FLS.

I want to second this. As a heavy user of the piano roll, little things like the way notes respond when I move them around make a huge difference over time. You don't want to feel like your DAW is fighting you all time. That's why Cubase would still be unmatched when it comes to MIDI for me even if it wasn't miles ahead of everything else as far as functionality, which it is. So, to answer the OP, a specific (but highly subjective) difference between DAWs is that the Ableton piano roll feels less solid and more squirrely than Cubase, at least to me.