Which sequencer has the BEST midi implementation?

[kritikon]

It's no problem...I have a widescreen monitor that's around 16 feet long - which means I can see all the extraneous shit on Cubase.

[original flipper]

HI

I like to open up 4 instances of Battery in SX just for fun.

Please tell me you can 'tell' Battery V2 how many outputs you want?

Saying that, at the moment I can't get Battery to work in SXV3 in a stable way so it hardly matters!

Flipper.

[flex42]

Yes, you can (prefs), stable here, albeit in SX 2.2.

[Sascha Franck]

Try switching Battery (V1.x) to "old plugin behavour" or so.

[TeeLangSun]

HI

I have been using Project 5 V2 for the last few days and think that like every other sequencer out there it has it's own particular way of doing things that given time would be comfortable to use.

It has a detachable window - which if you have 2 monitors means you can have a full screen dedicated to Midi/audio editing - this makes it a lot more fun to use.

I was going to reply to this post some time back, I think the point that is missed is that any sequencer is probably going to work for you on a basic level, I mean once you fathom out its depths (or lack of) you will make compensations - what I can't personally forgive is an interface that makes life awkward to get to where you want to go quickly.

There are a few well thought of Hosts around that I like but which have really arcane Midi editing facilities, this tends to revolve around the need to mess around getting the piano-roll to size up - I mean who wants to have to press all kinds of key commands and mouse wheel scrolling just to get a full screem midi edit page up?

I am not going to mention the names as people get defensive but it would not take a genius to work out which hosts I am talking about!

You got to give it to SX though - click on a midi clip and hey presto you have a FULL SCREEN PIANO ROLL, is that so difficult?

It would appear to be so as several hosts seem to think that we are using 72" plasma monitors.

Beyond that though you have to consider the overall program usability, I mean if their are features that make it that good it might compensate?

Personally the piano-roll/midi-editing for me is the holy grail and most of my initial time is spent there so I cannot be very forgiving of programs that however nice lack this feature - I recently upgraded one of my hosts for almost free as it is such a wonderfull program to work with audio clips in, has a simple and clear interface but has IMO shite midi editing .... what can you do

Porpoise.

I agree with you especially about being able to work in a nice large window and do a whole lot less scrolling. That's why we by larger and larger monitors. I believe though that many people don't see it this way. That's probably why these programs that cram everything into a single window are being received very well.

[xander]

Dual monitors are cool - and much cheaper in the long run. The last giant monitor I looked at was close to 4,000.oo dollars.... :O

[Sascha Franck]

Dual monitors IMO is the way to go. Unfortunately SX's dual monitor support is lousy, one of the reasons I don't like it.

[porpoise]

HI

Lousy?

What exactly is lousy about it?

That is one of the few things that stop me going insane - SXV3 dual monitor seems OK to me, I mean you spread SX accross the screens as you please and get on with it!

Porpoise.

[Sascha Franck]

About lousy dual monitor support:
You have to resize the main window for proper dual monitor support.
Even when using two monitors of the same size and resolution, this is sub-optimal as you'll have more title bars for your project windows and editors = waste of space.
It's getting even less ideal when using 2 monitors of different sizes (think about a laptop with an additional monitor). In that case resizing the main window won't lead to proper results at all.

In Logic, you can open ANY window as a float, drag it out of your main program window and resize it to fit any size of monitor. This is immensely useful for both the mixer (plus, we allready know about the general shortcomings of SX' mixer, dragging it out of the main windows doesn't give you much) and especially the Matrix (Key) and Hyper editors.
I can place them on any monitor of any size and resolution without wasting any space.
That's what dual monitor support has to be like - and I'm seriously wondering why nobody else is adopting it.

[memyselfandus]

I'm a midi Ninja, and I too have been having a hard time finding my weapon of choice that fits all my needs. I think part of my problem is that when I first started doing midi sequencing, the first program I used was Opcode's Studio Vision on the MAC. I then jumped from MAC and went to PC, and luckily for me Opcode released a PC version of Vision, and it was business as usual for me. Of course, then Gibson purchased Opcode and ended up firing all the Opcode programmers and development stopped on my favorite Midi sequencer. Development stopped on that program 6 years ago, and I still am having a hard time finding a program that does midi sequencing with the ease of use and all the features that Vision has. So I'm still using it, by having a seperate PC with Windows 98 on it, and syncing it together through MTC, and Midi Beat clock with my DAW WinXP machine. I'm still looking for a true replacement for Vision, especially since VSTi's opens up so much more sound creation options at a more affordable price than all my external sound modules, but want to use both in conjunction with each other. It sounds like I need to look at Cubase again, the last time I looked it was Cubase 5.0. I did try out Project 5 v2 and I do like it's midi functionality. One major problem is that it has no native midi out support and is designed for VSTi's only, thus no external hardware sound modules, unless you use a plugin that a user created. I heard a lot of the Programmers from Opcode went to Logic, and I gave that a shot, up to v4.0, but the learning curve was pretty steep, even for me for someone that has a pretty good understanding of how midi works. Other people did recommend Digital performer to me, but I really want to use Rewire to work with my DAW of choice and my midi sequencer of choice, so having a program on a MAC and another on a PC, kind of breaks the Rewire capabilities, plus I'm trying to cut down on the number of computers I have in my studio and not increase it. My plan is to look into Sonar and Cubase as possible solutions once again. It just pains me to see all these possible solutions available and none of them seem to have a simple user interface along with all the Ninja features needed for my preferences. I mean, hey Midi has only been around for 20 plus years now, are all these apps hoping it just disappears where they don't feel midi features aren't important anymore to spend time on developing?

I tried to push the Sony folks on working more on developing the midi features in Acid, but I think that's part of the reason they banned me from their forums, just because I was pointing out the midi limitations currently in that program. They keep telling me Acid is a loop sequencer first and foremost and making it a stronger loop sequencer is where it's development is headed. So about 2 years ago now, I told then they need to develop "Midi Forge", so they can develop a full featured midi sequencer that can be rewired with Acid.

Anyways, I'm glad to hear I'm not alone in the quest for the perfect midi sequencer program. Please let me know, if you find the ultimate solution. I'm gonna try out Sonar and Cubase, if I can find a Demo somewhere and post my findings.

What did you end up staying with?

[memyselfandus]

Double post

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[memyselfandus]

wow talk about an ancient bump memysefandus!

I guess the topic is as valid as always though. I still believe cubase and logic are the two "best" daw midi ninjas of this world today. Even though many love the fruity piano roll more than those two, overall nothing can compete with their logical editors and overall functionality. For pure midi power, i always recommend one of those two. IMHO of course.

ancient indeed still looking! Time signature per track and stuff

[xbitz]

all depends how do u use Cubase, if u build chord progression based/driven songs (trance ones for ex.) than as I've mentioned in the other topic, Nora will be your primary MIDI editor tool which is working exactly like the one in FL Studio (almost ... it hasn't got diagonal slicing)


it also adds the missing (launcher)pattern based clip support to Cubase

note based pitch shifting been added to 2.5

from 2:00

automation can be expression based like in this video

to able to use track versions

so currently IMO Cubase(with chord tracks) with Nora is the best if u use chords a lot

[memyselfandus]

Here's exactly what I have been looking for.. For about a decade. And these options were in studio vision in the 90's

"Complete sequences running nested inside other sequences. This way, you can have, for exemple, a sequence, written in 3/8 running inside anotjher sequence that has a base tempo, and tracks, in 4/4. It plays inside the 4/4 but stil in 3/8."

"Vision had a window where we could have several sequences open at the same time, and all active. Each sequence had a letter assigned to it. Also, the sequences could be triggered by MIDI. Each sequence could be triggered at the original pitch from the computer keyboard (by pressing the letter assigned to it) or could be "played" from the MIDI keyboard, if it was assigned to it.

You could also create a "sequence of sequences", which has its own master tempo, but each nested sequence runs as a "block" nested in the main sequence, but still has its own tempo track, etc. With that feature, you could create arrangements where you quickly drag entire sequences, one for the chorus, one or more for the bridges, one for the verses, one for the solos, and you could rearrange that very fast by drag and drop each "block". DP chunks work more or less the same way, but you cannot have more than one block active, while in SV these could be layered,

That's where people started to mess around, and sometimes created really crazy things.

The window where we had all the sequences opened at the same time is something that, AFAIK, still no other sequencer has, as of today. The closest thing to that is the "chunks" window in Digital Performer, but the way DP deals with "chunks" (a "chunk" can be an entire sequence) is not as advanced as Studio Vision (see above)."

can someone please confirm that these specific features are available in any daw or vst? It would make my year