Recording virtual instrument sessions?

[fathomstory]

@Peter Widdicombe Thanks but you give me far too much credit. I am a true newb. I have the MPK mini to play the virtual instruments TW provides, along with various other virtual synths available for linux. If I am really keen, I can expand options on other operating systems. But for now, am just trying to understand all this and will probably be noodling in a primitive way until I can learn the other stuff. The piano roll looks daunting to me. The other DAW I played around with is Acid Pro, which is more challenging to work on.

[pough]

What a lot of work for something that ought to be readily available!

This surprised me. It's been a long time since I installed any version of Waveform from nothing, but I have never experienced the inputs being hidden and having to do anything to make them appear. In fact, I had forgotten that this was even an option.

So I installed Waveform on my wife's computer and loaded up a brand new Project without any special options. The input areas are visible and accessible. I don't know if it's a different case for the Linux version or if they're not visible for a particular template. I never use a template. The visibility of the inputs can also be set using Layouts. Only the "Mixer" factory preset hides the inputs, but then it also hides all the tracks.

[Peter Widdicombe]

Rereading this thread, I'm still somewhat confused as to what the original question was trying to accomplish. You really can't use piano roll to edit audio, unless you do it in 2 tracks, where one is piano roll, and it then feeds output to another track recording audio (Although I think in some twisted way you can have MID and audio overlaid in one track, but probably CAN'T then get the MIDI output through a VST and back into the same track !! ).

A quick edit where midi in on track 1, plays through 4OSC or any other VST "normally". Track 2 takes audio input from track 1. Both enabled for record; and a quick recording session resulted in recording of both MIDI and audio on respective tracks.

[pough]

He wants to record the audio output of virtual instruments, as though he was sitting down at a physical instrument and recording that. It's possible, it's just not the easiest thing to do. And it's always somewhat difficult to get the thoughts in your head out onto a page, especially when you're new to processes. And especially when you use non-descriptive words like "it" to describe the thing is primary importance.

[Teksonik]

Why not just record to MIDI? That way you can edit the performance easier than with audio.

That's how I do it on a daily basis.

[pough]

Why not just record to MIDI?

The good news is that you can do both at the same time. So you can quickly capture a performance to audio and also re-do it if you need or want to.

[Peter Widdicombe]

MIDI is easier to work with; unless you want to tweak the .VST interface during performance and save that - like ADSR levels, arpeggiation, filters, oscillator tuning, etc. Some of those can be also recorded in MIDI, but not all; so if you are tweaking something like that or something with randomization, then MIDI and audio might be useful to save.

[Teksonik]

MIDI is easier to work with; unless you want to tweak the .VST interface during performance and save that - like ADSR levels, arpeggiation, filters, oscillator tuning, etc. Some of those can be also recorded in MIDI, but not all; so if you are tweaking something like that or something with randomization, then MIDI and audio might be useful to save.

Sure, audio has its place and I use it for recording my guitar playing but once a tweak is recorded to audio it's burned in.

I just prefer recording synths to MIDI because most tweaks can be recorded as automation and it's open to further editing.