Digital Performer 10 is now Ableton Live

[Dewdman42]

do you prefer a different word to be safer to hear? 4 channels?

[Dewdman42]

--

[Dewdman42]

its not a step process. its four tracks or channels or whatever the hell you want to call it, that have to clutter up the project space. a Nuisance. And by the way, I'm not sure why you're mentioning sequencers, but in the arp example that was given recently you will need 4 tracks/channels. And also it is absolutely not clear that it will be less confusing to even use VRacks at all. You are trying to push that story because you don't want to fess up to the fact that 4 objects are required. Its actually probably more organized to use 4 tracks in the sequence in a folder honestly. Either way...its too complicated and a nuisance.

[machinesworking]

do you prefer a different word to be safer to hear? 4 channels?

Not at all, V-Racks do not hold tracks, a VST in a V-Rack is not on a track, it's on a Mixer channel, but there is no timeline to a V-Rack. It's a DP naming convention, tracks exist in the Tracks and Sequence windows etc. I thought you knew DP well enough to know that and would get why I keep on saying it's not 4 tracks, unless you want your VSTs on tracks.

[machinesworking]

its not a step process. its four tracks or channels or whatever the hell you want to call it, that have to clutter up the project space. a Nuisance. And by the way, I'm not sure why you're mentioning sequencers, but in the arp example that was given recently you will need 4 tracks/channels. And also it is absolutely not clear that it will be less confusing to even use VRacks at all. You are trying to push that story because you don't want to fess up to the fact that 4 objects are required. Its actually probably more organized to use 4 tracks in the sequence in a folder honestly. Either way...its too complicated and a nuisance.

I think you're the one over complicating it here. V-Racks were invented in part to un-clutter your project space, and there is absolutely no good reason to have a MIDI VST in your sequence as a track, it makes way more sense to keep it in a V-Rack and be done with it. This is true whether it's an arpeggiator or the MPC.

I don't know how you worked in DP when you did work in it, but VSTs that do not need to be automated with track automation are best kept in a V-Rack, especially ones that do not have any need to be frozen. MIDI VSTs are a prime candidate for V-Racks. Oh and I'm pushing the story because it's more organized, makes more sense and uncomplicates and unclutters your tracks, no reason to have Aux's, MIDI VSTs and other such items on tracks.

Don't you use VEP if I recall? A V-Rack has essentially the same workflow as VEP, it's not complicated or a nuisance. It much Like VEP offers the same MIDI VSTs to any track you want in DP.

[richhickey]

Dewdman is right, it takes 2 tracks and 2 tracks or v-rack instruments (4 things) to do a MIDI plugin workflow (which is not the same as just using a VST MIDI generator like Maschine). This is not yet another case of people who don't understand v-racks, he does, as do I, having used Performer since the 80s.

What is in fact worse than the number of things (doing the same thing takes multiple, but fewer, tracks in Cubase or Studio One too) is the fact that DP does not have MIDI input monitoring. To do a plugin-like workflow the listening tracks must be record enabled, which can be a complete pain. This is not the case for Cubase and S1.

So, I agree with Dewdman, it would be great if DP allowed VST/AU MIDI plugins in addition to the builtin ones. It's not really a controversial idea, and the same feature request applies to Cubase and S1. Logic e.g. allows AUs as MIDI plugins.

[Dewdman42]

Thanks richhickey

In my mind the most ideal solution would be to add the ability to put VST/AU-mfx plugins into the plugin slots on midi tracks in DP, able to process the midi as it plays from the midi track on its way to the designated midi destination. That would be even better then what LogicPro does...

What LogicPro does, which would be second best suggestion, would be to put a midi VST/aumfx slot on instrument channels in DP above the the actual instrument slot. This would mirror what LogicPro provides. Its better then what DP has now, but the first suggestion above is more ideal because of one issue that can be a PITA in LogicPro, which is when you have many midi tracks feeding a single multi-timbral instrument plugin. In that case, in LogicPro you have to put a plugin that can be smart enough to filter the midi per channel and handle multi-timbral midi all flowing through that one plugin, which almost none are that smart frankly. With AU3, you can have up to 127 midi channels feeding a single multi-timbral instrument such as VePro. With MAS and VST3 you can have way more then that. So the first suggestion above is much more preferable because then each source midi track can have its own plugin to filter the midi or add to the midi stream that relates to that one midi port/channel, which is really the ideal!

However, I suspect there may be technical reasons in DP that this second suggestion may not be simple to do.

A third suggestion, would be to add some way to route midi between instruments without having to create midi tracks to do it. These midi router objects would basically just be a midi source and midi destination and would provide a way to get midi out of one instrument plugin and into another without having to fuss with an extra midi track being used for that purpose.

[Monkey Man]

Thanks richhickey

In my mind the most ideal solution would be to add the ability to put VST/AU-mfx plugins into the plugin slots on midi tracks in DP, able to process the midi as it plays from the midi track on its way to the designated midi destination. That would be even better then what LogicPro does...

Indeed DM, and of course this is the future DP's MIDI plugins promised except for the fact that MOTU said 3rd parties would have to develop specifically for DP.

If MOTU could concoct a way to allow us to insert VST/AU MIDI plugins right here, it's a no-brainer that it'd be the most-efficient (and elegant) solution.

[machinesworking]

Dewdman is right, it takes 2 tracks and 2 tracks or v-rack instruments (4 things) to do a MIDI plugin workflow (which is not the same as just using a VST MIDI generator like Maschine). This is not yet another case of people who don't understand v-racks, he does, as do I, having used Performer since the 80s.

I was replying to him saying that it was more complicated to host MID VSTs in a V-Rack.
I do not think that's more complicated.

What is in fact worse than the number of things (doing the same thing takes multiple, but fewer, tracks in Cubase or Studio One too) is the fact that DP does not have MIDI input monitoring. To do a plugin-like workflow the listening tracks must be record enabled, which can be a complete pain. This is not the case for Cubase and S1.

I can agree, but again, it's not the end of the world. I personally have at least 4 major requests for DP that come before input monitoring on MIDI tracks. I think a lot of my reaction to all this is a tiredness of having there be hardly any threads on DP outside of Motunation, and the ones that do show up are rife with ex users complaining about things that haven't been changed in years in DP, that IMO probably never will change.
Did you notice DP got a Clips window like Live? pretty cool eh? I'm an Ableton Live user and I'm pretty excited by the direction DP is going in.

So, I agree with Dewdman, it would be great if DP allowed VST/AU MIDI plugins in addition to the builtin ones. It's not really a controversial idea, and the same feature request applies to Cubase and S1. Logic e.g. allows AUs as MIDI plugins.

Here's the deal, Logic just started allowing AU's to send MIDI, (relatively speaking, I'm 100% certain Logic 8 for instance couldn't send MIDI at all from an AU), Logic hosts MIDI in it's AU instrument tracks, it also can't differentiate between input ports, i.e. it's input monitoring and ability to host MIDI AUs is quite possibly partially due to this structure.
DP on the other hand Doesn't host AU or VST in MIDI tracks. MIDI tracks are just MIDI.
People have complained about this for 20 years now and MOTU hasn't budged on it. I'm not trying to belittle anyones opinion, it's just that a lot of these things are what I would consider lost causes.

[machinesworking]

Thanks richhickey

In my mind the most ideal solution would be to add the ability to put VST/AU-mfx plugins into the plugin slots on midi tracks in DP, able to process the midi as it plays from the midi track on its way to the designated midi destination. That would be even better then what LogicPro does...

I think you and others have misconstrued my interjections here. I don't think your suggestions are bad or wrong etc. I just don't see any way that MOTU, after 35 years is going to change DP in the sorts of drastic ways you're suggesting. MIDI tracks have carried only MIDI since the beginning, and there are reasons beyond what you see in other DAWs why DP is set up this way. I really don't think it's any stretch to say that Chunks and V-Racks add another layer of complexity to drastically changing the way instrument or MIDI tracks handle data.

I also don't think it's any stretch to look at the trajectory of other DAWs with major "flaws", and consider that some things that people want never get addressed: Ableton Live to this day doesn't do SysEx, NRPN or more than 128 automation parameters etc.
Logic has multi instrument issues, only channel support for virtual instruments etc.

I'm not doing a whataboutism here, I'm just saying that there seem to be reasons why these fully capable DAWs that have been around for 18-30 odd years have these big differences of what are core functions. I think you can look at DP and Logic and say that they started out as MIDI sequencers that added audio then added virtual instruments and FX, and some of their quirks with audio instruments are probably due to this, just like how Ableton Live added virtual instruments only at version 4, No MIDI tracks at all until then, so it's not any wonder that it's MIDI is odd compared to DP or Logic.

Couple all this with the fact that DP does in fact work with MIDI VSTs, it's just not as elegant as you would like, I get that, but I'm slightly perplexed by how inelegant you think it is? To me anyway it's not that big of a deal, certainly less of a big deal than other things I wish DP would get like multi track bouncing etc. I mean if I was looking at DP for improvements in general I just don't see why something that we can currently do with a few more steps than in Logic is a big deal? Especially one that ins't that used by everybody. I have a few MIDI FX VSTs, I never use them in DP, mostly because DP has done various automation patterns for a very long time.

DP instantiates MIDI FX plug ins currently as addressable by multiple destinations, multiple Chunks etc. MIDI tracks tie it to a particular Chunk, instruments tie it to a particular instrument. It might be more 'work' initially, but it is more flexible as it stands.

[richhickey]

Couple all this with the fact that DP does in fact work with MIDI VSTs, it's just not as elegant as you would like, I get that, but I'm slightly perplexed by how inelegant you think it is? To me anyway it's not that big of a deal, certainly less of a big deal than other things I wish DP would get like multi track bouncing etc. I mean if I was looking at DP for improvements in general I just don't see why something that we can currently do with a few more steps than in Logic is a big deal? Especially one that ins't that used by everybody. I have a few MIDI FX VSTs, I never use them in DP, mostly because DP has done various automation patterns for a very long time.

DP instantiates MIDI FX plug ins currently as addressable by multiple destinations, multiple Chunks etc. MIDI tracks tie it to a particular Chunk, instruments tie it to a particular instrument. It might be more 'work' initially, but it is more flexible as it stands.

Well that's why we have forums, right? To hear from others with different workflows/needs. I am a huge DP fan, adore chunks, prefer separating MIDI tracks from instruments in a v-rack etc. IOW, I get and desire DP's fundamental model. I've also used S1 since it was first released and Steinberg since it was on the Atari, and I can tell you that, other than chunks, DP is not more flexible in routing MIDI from plugins. They both can route arbitrarily, can separate MIDI tracks from instruments, and they both have MIDI input monitoring.

DP's lack of support for articulations is a big deal for people working with orchestral libraries like Dewdman and myself, and we are trying to be creative in adapting DP to the task w/o lots of big new features (like a full articulation system). We both have a lot of experience using Logic's Scripter, and also using MIDI plugins that provide similar scripting of MIDI in all DAWs (e.g. Blue Cat Plug'n'Script and protoplug). Getting some sort of scripting running is a big deal, as it greatly reduces the need for more features. E.g. you can use DP's pretty good program change/patch system to encode articulations and a MIDI script to dynamically turn them into the various CCs and keyswitches needed by these libraries. Needing 4 things to do this is not a big deal for me, but lack of input monitoring is. The extra tracks are just busses if you will, but being record-enabled means that any time you record anything, i.e. tracks not related to this routing, they get printed/overdubbed etc and have to be cleaned up.

So, we might work differently than you do, but are experienced, and fans of DP (at least I am). We're not gripers, we're trying to make DP work for us.

Same team, ok?

[Dewdman42]

+1

[Dewdman42]

--

[machinesworking]

Well that's why we have forums, right? To hear from others with different workflows/needs. I am a huge DP fan, adore chunks, prefer separating MIDI tracks from instruments in a v-rack etc. IOW, I get and desire DP's fundamental model. I've also used S1 since it was first released and Steinberg since it was on the Atari, and I can tell you that, other than chunks, DP is not more flexible in routing MIDI from plugins. They both can route arbitrarily, can separate MIDI tracks from instruments, and they both have MIDI input monitoring.

Sure, I was comparing it to Logic, as per the original comparison. I mean we can always compare all the DAWs, and every one of them will have an area where their implementation is hands down the best. For instance Reaper destroys everything I've ever seen in terms of bounce options, just flat out skunks everyone. I would be happy enough with Logic or Ableton level bouncing in DP.

DP's lack of support for articulations is a big deal for people working with orchestral libraries like Dewdman and myself, and we are trying to be creative in adapting DP to the task w/o lots of big new features (like a full articulation system). We both have a lot of experience using Logic's Scripter, and also using MIDI plugins that provide similar scripting of MIDI in all DAWs (e.g. Blue Cat Plug'n'Script and protoplug). Getting some sort of scripting running is a big deal, as it greatly reduces the need for more features. E.g. you can use DP's pretty good program change/patch system to encode articulations and a MIDI script to dynamically turn them into the various CCs and keyswitches needed by these libraries. Needing 4 things to do this is not a big deal for me, but lack of input monitoring is. The extra tracks are just busses if you will, but being record-enabled means that any time you record anything, i.e. tracks not related to this routing, they get printed/overdubbed etc and have to be cleaned up.

Articulation management of some kind should definitely come to DP, I completely agree. I'm pretty sure they won't change the fundamental way that MIDI works in DP to accommodate this though. I think they would more likely add it to MIDI in the form of another MIDI FX plug in or like how the patch system works.

So, we might work differently than you do, but are experienced, and fans of DP (at least I am). We're not gripers, we're trying to make DP work for us.

Same team, ok?

Of course, I think the weirdest thing about online conversations is that people assume because you don't agree with their analysis of the solution, you don't see their point or are not interested or worried in the same things. This doesn't happen IRL but online? all the time.
Your concerns are mine. My biggest wishes for DP are better Bounce options, Articulation management, and the one no developer does enough of, refinement of existing features.

[machinesworking]

10.1 is out, and pretty much I'm thrilled, Clips are fleshed out, add Live like Clip recording to the Sequence/Track pages in DP10, you can also use old school non region based MIDI and IMO this is the best of both worlds.