Very substantial new Reaper version 2.4

[Tallisman]

Bob you are probably right.

the problem, as I see it, is that everyone (including me last year) mentions time and again the lack of midi prowess. It is usually mentioned either in ambiguity, or without function/usage definition. What I mean is:
Ambiguity: "Reaper's midi sux donkey ballz it needs the features of Cubase."

What the heck does that mean? Nothing to anyone that doesn't use Cubase's midi features. And certainly it means little to a Dev who started coding a Daw 'cause he was not feeling current offerings.

OR Lacking Definition:
1 Render to MIDI (Make a MIDI file of the entire song)
2 Total Recall (Save external hardware patches in song data)
3 Compositional (Slicers/Dicers/Arps/Step sequencing/Chorder)
4 Workflow tidying (Thing like changing the MIDI channel of an item are a pain)
5 Groove Quantize
6 editing multiple midi tracks
7 inline editing

Great we have a list, but no definition. No vision of how such features are incorporated into a work flow (we assume the DEVs know). Nor a clear understanding of the scope of the features and what they actually accomplish.
Groove quantize probably means 5 different things to 5 different folks who use it differently.

I think we have a stellar opportunity here. We have the ear of 3 very capable coders. If folks could/would discuss midi feature by feature leaving behind the DAW war mentality I am sure we could come to consensus on the best implementation of various features. Or, perhaps how by combining parts of the logic way and parts of the cubendo way would pimp it out fully... then we might wake up one day to a fantastic midi feature set. This is what has happened in Reaper with the audio side, most recently scrub. It can, and I am sure would, happen with midi.

What do you think?



.t

[koolkeys]

1 Render to MIDI (Make a MIDI file of the entire song)

The ability to take an entire song made with MIDI and export it as a single type 0 MIDI file, which contains all MIDI in a single track. Or as a type 1 file, which contains each individual track on it's own channel/track so when you export it to another sequencer, it will create multiple tracks of MIDI, all split up the way you had them.

2 Total Recall (Save external hardware patches in song data)

When using hardware, a MIDI sequencer should be able to read the patches that the hardware has on board and be able to control whatever patch is selected and even save the patch so next time the song is loaded, it automatically tells the external hardware to load the needed patch.

3 Compositional (Slicers/Dicers/Arps/Step sequencing/Chorder)

This could be anything. Step sequencers, step recording(I think Reaper has that already, no?), arpeggiators, plugins that play a chord based on intervals you define whenever you hit a single note. Stuff like that. Basically anything that would help create sequenced MIDI parts so you don't have to mouse in every note(or can't play that well)

4 Workflow tidying (Thing like changing the MIDI channel of an item are a pain)

This can go in any direction, and is focused on ease of use and eliminating steps. Inline editing(see below) would help with this, maybe a dropdown box on the interface that shows the current channel of the selected MIDI item that can be changed easily(maybe with a "lock" button as well so it can't accidentally change), etc. Anything that can be done easier, no doubt should be easier.

Eliminating overlapping notes, making the end of each note lengthen or shorten itself to where the next note starts, eliminating double notes(two on top of each other). These could all be considered as well.

5 Groove Quantize

Being able to take the "groove" from one MIDI track and apply it to another, or to an incoming track. Can be used for applying swing to a track that was recorded straight. Basically making a recorded MIDI clip "more like" another one. You could also save a clip as a "template", which is essentially a style. Maybe even have an editor that allows you to edit that style and set tendencies, swing values, etc. It can be as simple or advanced as you want.

To be basic, it's just regular quantize, but with "rules". Tendencies to do one thing over another, where to apply harder velocities and downbeats, stuff like that. Here is how Cakewalk briefly describes it:

Groove Quantize

Groove Quantize allows you to change the "feel" of an existing performance. This is especially handy for spicing up step-entered MIDI data or performances that need tight, groovin' timing.

The best way to learn how to use Groove Quantize is by experimentation. Other than the Groove Source itself, the settings that will effect Groove Quantize the most are the Resolution, Strength Duration, Strength Time, and Strength Velocity.

6 editing multiple midi tracks

I'm guessing he means to have the ability to view two, three, or however many MIDI tracks in one interface, instead of an "one track or all tracks" method. Maybe have them in one window, or in a split window. If you only want to line up two tracks with each other, you can view just those two. I would assume the easiest way would be a "plus" button that splits the current MIDI screen and gives you a second or third or fourth track sharing the screen. Or a popup box(which many don't like, myself included) that gives you check boxes to select which tracks are displayed(kind of like the routing windows in the main view). This whole request would be easier with inline editing(see below) because you COULD open more than one track. But they wouldn't always be next to each other, so having this ability in the popup editor would be good too.

7 inline editing

This is the biggie. The ability to edit MIDI right on the timeline, without opening another window to do so. Just expand the track and be able to edit the MIDI. Or have a button that turns the inline display into a piano roll right there on the timeline. No popups, and GREAT for quick editing. You can then line up MIDI quite easily with audio and other MIDI tracks because they are sharing the same space. No lining up of windows needed!



Hope this helps. If he meant something different, hopefully he'll correct me on them. I think I covered them all though.

Brent

[pdxindy]

OR Lacking Definition:
1 Render to MIDI (Make a MIDI file of the entire song)
2 Total Recall (Save external hardware patches in song data)
3 Compositional (Slicers/Dicers/Arps/Step sequencing/Chorder)
4 Workflow tidying (Thing like changing the MIDI channel of an item are a pain) 5 Groove Quantize
6 editing multiple midi tracks
7 inline editing

Great we have a list, but no definition.

Reaper midi is rudimentary enough that I am not using it. So I will leave it to those who are to take on such work and make more specific suggestions that would be pertinent to Reaper.

Midi data is simple. Manipulating it is nothing compared to doing good timestretching of audio. There should be a whole suite of functions to be able to edit midi data in musically useful ways.

As Bob mentioned, my old Atari had midi functionality that Reaper doesn't.

[koolkeys]

Midi data is simple. Manipulating it is nothing compared to doing good timestretching of audio. There should be a whole suite of functions to be able to edit midi data in musically useful ways.

While logic would tend to agree with this(and so would I), it's odd that most hosts these days focus more on audio than MIDI. Outside of only a couple, are there any hosts that actually focus on MIDI FIRST? I mean, MIDI is JUST numbers, not much in the way of algorithms, right?

There are also very few books on MIDI that come out. Why? Because MIDI is still on version 1.0. It hasn't changed! It's not like audio where new cool things are invented and processing of that audio is so wide open. There is no "warm" or "sounds like this hardware", aliasing, formants, etc. It's all numbers and math with limited bandwidths, parameters, and en entire detailed spec that hasn't changed since the day it was released.

I have a book called "The MIDI Files". It's several years old(came with a floppy) and is out of print. I looked through it the other day. And guess what? NONE of the information inside is irrelevant today. It's all still used the same today as it was years ago.

So it intrigues me why MIDI isn't more of a focus for most hosts. My GUESS would be, and this applies to many "host starters" I've seen(like Jules, Justin, etc.) that the original devs come from a traditional studio background and don't use MIDI. Maybe it's because audio is more of a challenge and it's more rewarding to get it right. Or maybe the dev originally doesn't see how vast the usage of MIDI really is. They don't realize that entire stage lighting systems are controlled through MIDI, massive chains of synthesizers and hardware sequencers are in sync through the magic of MIDI, or that there is just so much power in MIDI inside of a host environment.

So it all makes me curious.

Brent

[airon]

Tallisman speaks of a simple truth. The Reaper devs are great at actualy coding stuff and listening so users to the functions they build are as useful as they can be.

The devs could use a couple of good references by experienced MIDI users. It may be that so far users have not explained some of the very good ideas in other DAWs well enough, and made detailed requests as a result. A lot of people do think just pointing to another DAW is enough, but these developers probably code more than they check other DAWs for reference. I'm one of the users that wanted scrub, and Justin grilled me and many others continuously after the first beta on how this particular function needs to perform in a useful manner.

You don't send the developers an idea and then wait for them to deliver perfection. The Reaper devs work with the users, once they get the first implementation going.

To get this first implementation going, the developers need to know what you need, so again just pointing to another DAW doesn't cut it. They want to know why this or that is useful, as there are too many such request that just say "I need this and can't use Reaper until it has that feature."

Why ?

There are several magnitude number of users more out there than developers, so if some of us users take the time to carefully explain our needs, one piece at a time, this has a bigger chance of being implemented, whether it's immediately(happens) or in the near future.

I went through that with the audio scrub. There's nothing for it ladies and gents, you have to try to succeed. As many times as it takes, and be smart about it.

[Art Evans]

It becomes frustrating asking for photoshop functionality and always someone comes back saying they find iPhoto adequate.

Exactly. We're talking about iPhoto [Reaper] here, and people keep saying we should be using Photoshop [Cubase or whatever], or that iPhoto should have all the features of Photoshop. If we wanted to talk about or use Photoshop, we would. Frankly I'm unsure as to whether that's what you were trying to say, or the other way round, but that's the way I see it.

So it intrigues me why MIDI isn't more of a focus for most hosts.

Well, here I go back to midi in Audition again. It was aimed squarely at users at a certain level with a certain type of requirement. Adobe themselves said that there was no point in trying to compete with mature and fully featured midi sequencers like Cubase. The idea was that so many people have VSTi instruments these days, perhaps as alternatives to real ones, that keeping Audition audio-only was excluding someone from using a VSTi piano who might well find it impractical to maintain a real one. Conceptually it doesn't have to be that much different from recording audio - it's still stuff arriving down a wire - and of course if you want you can record a VSTi as audio rather than as midi data.

Now having at least provided for recording midi data and interpreting it through a VSTi, Adobe provided a simple midi editor so that if you hit a bum note, you could fix it in the midi realm rather than needing to do something perhaps more clever in the audio realm. But in essence, they were going just far enough to not exclude totally VSTi instruments from Audition projects.

Now Reaper's implementation of midi looks to me a lot like something in the same Audition style (not least because like Audition you wouldn't immediately know it was there at all), but it's been taken a bit further in terms of the sophistication of the editing available. It's for people who want more than Audition, but less than Cubase (or whatever).

Maybe they just want to pitch it at that point, not wishing to take on the big boys of midi sequencing. If you want a Cubase-style DAW, buy Cubase. If you want a Reaper-style DAW, buy Reaper. I simply do not see why they have to pitch at the same market. Differentiation is a key thing in marketing, no?

And getting back to the Koolkey's actual question, well, why reinvent the wheel if someone's got the wheel market nicely covered already?

(I've got The Midi Files too - must read it!)

[Art Evans]

if some of us users take the time to carefully explain our needs, one piece at a time, this has a bigger chance of being implemented, whether it's immediately(happens) or in the near future.

Indeed - with the cue/marker thing after some debate among the forum members I summarised the request with a pretty detailed spec of how cue/markers should work, how it would fit in the interface, and how it would inter-relate with other apps, and that's exactly what we got (with a couple of improvements!). But the way I put it did take into account Reaper style and what seemed reasonably feasible.

[koolkeys]

I tried to explain the features that somebody else suggested above. Hopefully they are of SOME use to somebody.

But anyways, Art, you have the book but haven't read it? Wow! It's been sitting for a while, eh? In complete honesty, if you read it, then you will know MIDI. It hasn't changed. I have one other MIDI book, "MIDI Power" that I had to have in school. The information is all the same except for the examples which use newer versions of the software that is used in The Midi Files. But it's a good read and all the info is still relevant. Good luck with the floppy disk if you have a newer machine, haha(it's really just some MIDI files showing techniques and such)!

Brent

[Caleb]

Yeah Justin seems pretty good like that.

He probably has a bit more trouble conceptualising all sorts of midi editing doo-hickeys because he probably doesn't give a crap about them. Therefore, if someone went to the effort of outlining how it should all work within the current application, then there's probably a better chance of him banging it in there.

I still remember when he super charged the event properties dialog. I thought it was hilarious not because it isn't functional, but because it seemed like it was implemented by someone who didn't give much of a crap about it.

I think at the time my comment was "Well that shut me up".

Regards
Caleb

[kL]

On the road and playing catch up since the goat segment:

To answer someone's video question, no, I don't believe you can split the audio from the picture. I did use Reaper to score a pharmaceutical commercial; what I did was just mute the audio of the track holding the picture (.avi, converted from quicktime... make sure to make every frame a keyframe -- a hint from someone on the reaper forum who's name eludes me; it's been about nine months -- or it won't sync accurately), do the score, and send it sans picture to the client's post house. After I got the kinks out it worked great. I used to use Vegas for this type of work, but needed midi, vsti's, and reason for this one.

Which brings me to my next subject: the Reaper Midi Controversy. I'm not one to tell anyone else how to work or what to like; that is not my intention. But I used to do product demos for Dr. T's Music Software back in the real heyday of midi. Between KCS's Programmable Variations Generator and TIGER (the interactive graphic editing recorder) Dr. T's arguably represented a high water mark in midi power. In fact, I was working the booth at NAMM when the Steinberg guys came over to pay respects to Emile when they were first developing what was, at the time, called CUBIT. I remember the principal designer telling me how influenced he was by KCS.

Why am I boring you with this? Just to frame my opinion that Reaper's midi is, as far as I'm concerned, easy to use and quite functional. (Of course, I'm a musician, so I could be biased towards playing, but I do a fair amount of editing as well.) I wish it was completely inline, and I wish there was a way to -- as has been mentioned -- graphically copy, move, and paste CC data, but other than that it generally works fine. It has a few quirks and won't allow you to, say, select every third Ab with a velocity between 110 and 115 and transpose it or delay it 20 ticks, but it gets the work done.

I agree with various posters that score editing is an entirely different function best left to another application. None of the DAW's that support it do it well, and it is -- in my opinion, and I've been reading and writing music most of my life -- about the least efficient way to edit midi imaginable.

And, as a brief nod to the ongoing conflict that seems to have infected this thread like runaway ebola on a hot day, I recall Koolkeys being extemely helpful a few years back when I was using Tracktion for a little while, and all the Reaper guys involved are personable, amiable, and always ready to assist at the drop of a post. In short: good guys all around who just need to take a machete to the semantic jungle around here to see there's really no need for conflict. The bottom line is the music, and sometimes that takes no more than a ukulele and a cassette recorder. Conflict is for politics.

[shogger]

...The bottom line is the music, and sometimes that takes no more than a ukulele and a cassette recorder. Conflict is for politics.

But I don't have a Ukulele and a cassette recorder. I only have some guitars and Reaper. And lots of plugins. And ...

Thanx for your head up and yes, we should keep the conflicts out.

Shogger

[chicken muffin]

you know my take on this whole reaper thing? see my thread on the cockos forums.
http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=22780

it seems that reaper doesnt play nice with freeware thats synthedit. and isnt most freeware synth edit! i cant say the same about fl studio. the performance diffrences are like night and day. freeware of all kinds work flawless in fl studio. no freeze though

[pdxindy]

It becomes frustrating asking for photoshop functionality and always someone comes back saying they find iPhoto adequate.

Exactly. We're talking about iPhoto [Reaper] here, and people keep saying we should be using Photoshop [Cubase or whatever], or that iPhoto should have all the features of Photoshop. If we wanted to talk about or use Photoshop, we would. Frankly I'm unsure as to whether that's what you were trying to say, or the other way round, but that's the way I see it.

Then it would be nice to have a clear statement. Is Reaper iPhoto and always will be? Or as various users suggest, it is intended to be Photoshop but just isn't there yet.

If it is intended to be iPhoto, then I need not ever give it another thought. Well, that is not true... I like Reaper for editing audio interviews and no midi.

[pdxindy]

Which brings me to my next subject: the Reaper Midi Controversy. I'm not one to tell anyone else how to work or what to like; that is not my intention. But I used to do product demos for Dr. T's Music Software back in the real heyday of midi. Between KCS's Programmable Variations Generator and TIGER (the interactive graphic editing recorder) Dr. T's arguably represented a high water mark in midi power. In fact, I was working the booth at NAMM when the Steinberg guys came over to pay respects to Emile when they were first developing what was, at the time, called CUBIT. I remember the principal designer telling me how influenced he was by KCS.

Why am I boring you with this? Just to frame my opinion that Reaper's midi is, as far as I'm concerned, easy to use and quite functional. (Of course, I'm a musician, so I could be biased towards playing, but I do a fair amount of editing as well.) I wish it was completely inline, and I wish there was a way to -- as has been mentioned -- graphically copy, move, and paste CC data, but other than that it generally works fine. It has a few quirks and won't allow you to, say, select every third Ab with a velocity between 110 and 115 and transpose it or delay it 20 ticks, but it gets the work done.

Some people find it adequate, some do not. The ones who do not usually are doing more intensive midi editing, using external hardware midi etc. Reaper is not close to Logic as far as midi capability. That said, personally, I think there is a whole area of development waiting to happen with Midi... Temper is about the only software trying to chart some new ground. Logic and Cubase are the top of the midi food chain, and I would say they could easily be surpassed.

As Koolkeys mentioned, the innovative area has been audio, with people like Jules (Tracktion), Justin (Reaper) etc pushing audio forward with innovative ideas that others then copy. Midi has no such innovation happening for the most part. I would personally choose the new innovative app that is primarily focused on midi with audio being the more rudimentary afterthought than what we have which is the other way round. Anyway, that is my interest and what I would like to see.

You also mention the 'real heyday of midi'. I am waiting for the midi renaissance and an even greater new heyday. So I'm looking forward to when some developer does that.

[Steffen Fuerst]

3 Compositional (Slicers/Dicers/Arps/Step sequencing/Chorder)

This could be anything. Step sequencers, step recording(I think Reaper has that already, no?), arpeggiators, plugins that play a chord based on intervals you define whenever you hit a single note. Stuff like that. Basically anything that would help create sequenced MIDI parts so you don't have to mouse in every note(or can't play that well)

Did you took a look at the JS Scripts? You can do a lot of this stuff with existing ones, and even better, can easily write own scripts

But i agree, that the conventional midi stuff isn't reapers strength.