How is Reapers midi functionality compared to Logic?

[sellyoursoul]

Er, again, forgive.......but "ctrl-T" makes another track here.

I used that key combo as an example. You can set that key combo to 'insert track template'. It's default action is 'insert new track'. Do you know how to set key combos? I don't want to explain, if you already know.

Edit: sorry, got my lingo messed up a bit.

[hibidy]

TBH, I'm not sure I understand, so I'll leave checking all the for tomorrow (it's late here)

It is most definitely a good thing how customizable things are

[EvilDragon]

As my slip editing demonstrates, the underlying MIDI data of the original performance is fully intact, and moreover survives the split operation. If you do enough slip editing on the resulting split clips you can get two entirely overlapping clips containing all of the original MIDI data with nothing lost.

WHICH is the basic work paradigm of Reaper - completely non-destructive editing. If you want to destructively split items, select the item after the split, then glue it. Then a new item is created only with the data contained in it.

[IIRs]

As my slip editing demonstrates, the underlying MIDI data of the original performance is fully intact, and moreover survives the split operation. If you do enough slip editing on the resulting split clips you can get two entirely overlapping clips containing all of the original MIDI data with nothing lost.

WHICH is the basic work paradigm of Reaper - completely non-destructive editing. If you want to destructively split items, select the item after the split, then glue it. Then a new item is created only with the data contained in it.

Indeed. I think the fundamental reason that Reaper can't simply "do it the way the other sequencers do it" is because it uses the same editing paradigm for all types of clips as far as possible.

While I aknowledge that the clip splitting behaviour mentioned here might be an inconvenience for some people, there are many other really cool Reaper options that stem directly from that internal consistency, and I would personally miss those more.

For example, did you realise that MIDI clips can use alternate takes in the same way as audio clips? Whats more, the same clip can have both midi and audio takes at the same time!

Try this: insert a synth plug, and record a clip of midi. Then right-click the clip, and select "Apply track FX to items as new take": your synth part will be rendered as audio, then added to the clip as take 2. How cool is that?

[EvilDragon]

Yep, that is indeed very cool.

[sellyoursoul]

TBH, I'm not sure I understand, so I'll leave checking all the for tomorrow (it's late here)

It is most definitely a good thing how customizable things are

Maybe this will help a bit. http://i.imgur.com/PnI7w.png

[LawrenceF]

WHICH is the basic work paradigm of Reaper - completely non-destructive editing. If you want to destructively split items, select the item after the split, then glue it. Then a new item is created only with the data contained in it.

Indeed. I think the fundamental reason that Reaper can't simply "do it the way the other sequencers do it" is because it uses the same editing paradigm for all types of clips as far as possible.

Look guys, it was just the one thing, don't change the music performance when I split clips on the timeline, that's all, nothing else. I don't care if they do it just like other sequencers do it or not, I just don't ever want the music performance changing when I split clips. Not an unreasonable request, and no paradigm should ever do that without you specifically telling it to... imo.

The others being directly compared by me are also non-destructive, to the notes and to the musical performance, so I don't get the point.

The only reason it went on and on here is because I made a short (very short) mention of it and apparently nobody seemed to know what I was talking about... so it got extended as I tried to explain it.

Does Reaper do some nifty things in other ways? Yes, it certainly does.

In a thread directly asking to compare Reaper's midi to Logic's midi you didn't expect a Reaper rainbow shower did you?

It's all good.

[LawrenceF]

While I aknowledge that the clip splitting behaviour mentioned here might be an inconvenience for some people, there are many other really cool Reaper options that stem directly from that internal consistency, and I would personally miss those more.

Absolutely. That makes perfect sense for you. For the way I work with midi, that one thing was actually damaging my music on a regular basis, unless I intervened to "slip edit" (trim) it back where it was (+ deleted the new notes)... something I've never had to do before in any other sequencer I used, mmv.

So I mentioned it. No big deal. At least it shouldn't be. Working users are reporting it, not just me. Someone just reported it again a couple of days ago, asking what can be done. A variation of the same problem...

http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php? ... midi+clips

======================

"After the split the playback would sound exactly as it does now, but the items trim edges could be adjusted without revealing silence or doubled notes where there originally were none,

When I split audio I can adjust the trim points without changing the content of the original audio.

When I split a midi item I am involuntarily altering the content of the midi inside the item.

I work primarily with midi and the current behavior has in every instance been undesirable.

=======================

... which is pretty much all I was saying, the same thing.

But for sure, Reaper's universal track has some advantages. Another separate thing, a good thing... a really good thing.

[IIRs]

I just don't ever want the music performance changing when I split clips.

It doesn't change in Reaper: both new clips refer to the original data, just like splitting an audio clip.

As an ex-cubase user I used to find notes continuing past the end of the clip quite annoying, and I'm glad Reaper doesn't work that way!

[LawrenceF]

I just don't ever want the music performance changing when I split clips.

It doesn't change in Reaper: both new clips refer to the original data, just like splitting an audio clip.

As an ex-cubase user I used to find notes continuing past the end of the clip quite annoying, and I'm glad Reaper doesn't work that way!

If you have one D#3 across a two bar range and split the clip and then have 2 D#3's across a 2 bar range, how is that not changing if the note is now triggering twice in that two bar range instead of only once? Audio crossfades on split, you never hear the split, midi triggers again, at 127 if that was the original velocity. That, you do hear.

Now multiply that by 18 tracks and multiple split notes triggering in places where nobody actually ever played a note. Not sure how that's not a problem for anyone else... but I'm also not suggesting or implying that it should be a problem for anyone else, really I am not ... just that it is / was for me.

So it's all good. Thanks IIR. There's nothing to disagree about here. It just clearly needs a simple option not to do that. That's all.

[sellyoursoul]

Notes splitting is annoying in some cases. I wish there was an option for that behavior in Reaper.

[LawrenceF]

Anyway, not sure why we're hung up on something so obvious. An option would fix it, and those who actually prefer that behavior that would still be fine, by not turning the option on.

One more option among the many that's already there. No biggie. I never personally demanded the option or anything so aggressive, I actually waited a couple of years for it.

[IIRs]

If you have one D#3 across a two bar range and split the clip and then have 2 D#3's across a 2 bar range, how is that not changing if the note is now triggering twice in that two bar range instead of only once?

You have two D#3s because you now have two clips. In each clip the data has not changed: the note re-triggers because you have introduced a clip end and clip start in the middle of that note, and Reaper does not allow notes to play beyond the ends of clips.

I'm not saying you are wrong to want it to work differently, or that there should not be an option to change it: just pointing out that it is in fact non destructive, and internally consistent with the audio editing paradigm.

[kbaccki]

http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php? ... midi+clips

======================

"After the split the playback would sound exactly as it does now, but the items trim edges could be adjusted without revealing silence or doubled notes where there originally were none,

When I split audio I can adjust the trim points without changing the content of the original audio.

When I split a midi item I am involuntarily altering the content of the midi inside the item.

I work primarily with midi and the current behavior has in every instance been undesirable.

=======================

I just added to that thread. The recommendation from DarkStar was to extend clip boundaries (good! solves the invisible sounding notes issue, IMO), but also preserve the overlapping notes between the clips (bad! ). There needs to be an option that creates two entirely disjoint clips (or 3 in the case of selection-based splits) whose union produces exactly the source clip. I think that behavior is actually better than what you've displayed from Logic splits because it properly displays note length across the split rather than hides it…

[LawrenceF]

Thanks.

I'm in full agreement with anything that means I would play a midi sequence, split a bunch of tracks for any reason, play it again, and never hear anything different from what I heard before, without doing anything else. Now how that will be made possible in Reaper's architecture doesn't matter much to laypeople really, as long as it ends up there optionally, while not forcing that on people who'd rather it not do that.

Hindsight would suggest that bringing Cubase into the discussion as an example of a common approach kinda threw it all off track, because Reaper isn't built like any those other things. My bad on that. The only real point there was to get the same resullt in the end, don't change anything or play anything differently or however one cares to technically view or define what happens now to make you hear different stuff, as long as it sounds the same.

I appreciate your input.

Thanks man. I think this is about as "settled" as any net discussion ever gets. Ending very well.