To Main Window Addicts : How do you sequence ?

[disturb]

Hi folks,

I've been dedicating some time to eXT lately, so i'm (re-)reading a bunch of threads etc, and it seems to me that A LOT of you are addicted to the main window
I've seen a lot ppl mentioning that they do everything in the main, but how do you sequence your songs ?

It seems like a really odd way to me, since i always load a sequencer, and load an ext vst on each track, i reckon i would save some ressources and time, if i could do that as conveniently (midi channels, routing from the seq...) in the main window, but i can't figure it out...

cheers

[undef]

i guess using the sequencers midi out(s) would not be an option for you as you'd lose the great freeze and bouncing modes - but i think you could load just one ext vsti into the sequencer and sequence the stuff in that single vsti via multible midi channels.

pros: just one main window -> more overview
cons: maybe setting up different insruments/effects to respond only to a certain midi channel may be to much work for you (if you're a really lazy one )

[ik_ik_ik]

I tend not to "sequence" and that's the whole beauty of the main window approach for me. I was so sick and tired of the linear and, most of all, premeditated approach that sequencers force you to work in. The main window lets me compose and react to the music not design and architect it.

I tend to set up multiple MIDI Part comps in which are multiple parts with individual triggers (some in play groups, some in mute groups, some independent). I'll map these to various keys and usually stick to some sort of system e.g. percussion parts on C1, D1, E1, F1, etc. I'll usually name the comps to show what their trigger keys are. I'll usuallly use one MIDI Part comp per instrument but sometimes use multiple ports and layer things up in different ways.

Some parts contain notes, some CC data, some both. Often I'll work with parts of various different lengths.

I'll also often use Arpeggiator comps and sometimes route parts into others to trigger them in interesting ways (a modular form of sequencing if you look at it that way).

On top of that I sometimes use my own plugins to process the MIDI events in interesting ways to make things more dynamic - switching, transposing, offseting, etc. For example I have an arpeggiator create a hi-hat pattern that is 13 16ths long and pass it through a plugin that scales velocity but that scaling is modulated by an envelope that is cycling in a pattern that is 17 bars long (prime numbers are nice for this stuff).

I'll generally use multiple mixers to create groups (e.g. a mixer to handle all the outputs from a multi output VSTi such as Drumatic) and then either set up individual or shared send ot insert effects - the ability to quickly route one signal into an effect somewhere else (and see what's happening!) is fantastic.

I'll route incoming CC data to various destinations and map CCs to whatever I want to control on the fly for that particular composition - a few mixer levels, send levels, VSTi parameters, etc. Nice thing about this is being able to easily modulate various things with one controller if that's the way I want to do it at that time.

I tend to start with a blank canvas every time - just eight channel mixer via a VST limiter to the master out.

I work much the same way whether on my laptop only (i.e. software only) or in the studio where I do similar things but route the MIDI to my hardware via multiple MIDI Patcher comps and VST2MID plugins to the various ports and channels on AMT8 Midi Interface that everything hangs from. In the studio it's usually MIDI only although sometimes I work with a hybrid of MIDI and audio from within XT.

The flexibility is immense. I don't doubt that a lot of this could be done in or via the sequencer but the transparency and explicit routing flexibilty that the main window always offers is so important.

I suppose at the end of the day the point is that I'm sequencing more or less everything on the fly rather than a sequencer sequencing everything. Horses for courses though.

Cheers,

Inigo

[Paulie Phonick]

Interesting workflow, ik, gotta try that out.

I tend to do my arrangements in the sequencer. I route each MIDI track to a VSTi, then VSTi outs to individual Audio Outs of the sequencer. Same goes for Audio tracks, which get their separate sequencer outs as well. Then I do all the effects patching in the main window as it gives a waay better overview and allows for easy setting up of things such as sidechains or sends. To me this is the best of both worlds - I can freeze VSTis and have modular freedom... and yes, I am addicted to the main window.

[disturb]

undef : see paulie's post

Ik : I'd REALLY like to be able to play with a ready made project like that, if by any chance you have something that you'd be willing to share, I (among others i'm sure) would really appreciate the effort...

Paulie : i should have thought of that, it seems like a pretty good way, except 2 things :
i often set up some tricky midi mangling chains with vst plugins, and in this setup, you're kinda stuck with ext's midi fxs for the main instruments (there may be some routing possible, but that'd be pretty tricky)
and second, hmmm i forgot while typing the previous one ... I'll have to try it out though.

Thanks for the cool responses so far

[Paulie Phonick]

I agree, MIDI processing is limited when you do arrangements in the seq like I described. If only the sequencer had an option of adding MIDI inputs, you could do the MIDI mangling before the seq comp and then assign MIDI ins to MIDI channels... who writes the FR?

[Klemperer]

That makes for a perfect Tip for the FAQ, ik_ik_ik, thanks for that!!

[Amberience]

I use the main window when I want to do live processing of a sound. Anything that is sequenced and cannot change is all in the sequencer for me.

I used XT last year to mangle sound in a live way. Back then there wasn't really any kind of 'ducking' plugin, so I used the Slim Slow Sidechain compressor to do my ducking. Incoming audio would duck out the audio playing in XT, and the incoming audio would then be mangled in a different way to the sequenced audio.

[ik_ik_ik]

That makes for a perfect Tip for the FAQ, ik_ik_ik, thanks for that!!

I'm not in the vicinty of XT at the moment ( ) but I'll try to get a couple of screen grabs posted up later if it helps - maybe a "typical" laptop/software only one and a studio/hardware one. A picture says a thousand words after all.

[Klemperer]

I'm not in the vicinty of XT at the moment ( ) but I'll try to get a couple of screen grabs posted up later if it helps - maybe a "typical" laptop/software only one and a studio/hardware one. A picture says a thousand words after all.

Yes, pics are nice . But I added your words to the tips-section even though just a minute ago. Asseca will put it to the official tips one of the next days, I'm sure.
The Wiki allows no pics up to now, but I'll simply add a link to your words then!

[disturb]

I agree, MIDI processing is limited when you do arrangements in the seq like I described. If only the sequencer had an option of adding MIDI inputs, you could do the MIDI mangling before the seq comp and then assign MIDI ins to MIDI channels... who writes the FR?

what about midi parts in teh seq ? :p
and as far as i know you can already do what you described with your setup...

[Paulie Phonick]

You mean I can add MIDI inputs to the sequencer? How?

[Amberience]

I don't think you can just yet. But remember you have 16 midi channels. No reason why the first midi input wouldn't do what you want.

You can split the input up into it's 16 channels by changing the record mode of the midi tracks. Set the input channel to whichever one you wanted and press the record monitor button.

[mahtazz]

Hi Inigo,


Have you some time to make a tutorial for this workflow?

[ZooTooK]

Very intresting reading.....