Should we have an "Enhanced for Midi" Track type

[DarthFader]

Which would:

1) Make volume and pan send midi
2) On the selected "Track Channel" (or None to not rechannelize the track data)
3) Show transpose and patch name on the TCP (enhanced "Inspector")
4) Be an option that users would never have to use if they didnt want to

NOTE: If you "just want an inspector" that is still a YES vote, since that "inspector" presumably would only be on "enhanced midi tracks"

DF

[pbk]

Yep. There are some things I miss from the Sonar MIDI tracks that could integrate well with Reaper universal track type. It would be nice that in the future we also have some fancy stuff like an Arpeggiator. ;-}

[gofer]

I would vote for more customization of tracks, so Reaper's unified tracks can mimic MIDI track type. I declare abstention from this poll

[a2039040]

It's not just that reaper needs a midi track type, it needs many midi enhancements. Both cubase & sonar have unique midi stuff. Just take the best of both and reproduce that and then go a step further and put in things that neither of them have.

[e.g.:]

Why not just have a menu option similar to the "insert virtual instrument on new track"? Just make it chock full of MIDI goodness.

[DarthFader]

Originally Posted by e.g.:

Why not just have a menu option similar to the "insert virtual instrument on new track"? Just make it chock full of MIDI goodness.

Define chock full of goodness as it relates to the features and UI.

And note -- not every midi track is a "Virtual Instrument"! There are hardware midi devices too.

It's for these non VSTi devices that this track type would help out so much more so than just a VSTi track.

For people that only use VSTi's they probably don't see half of what's clunky in this area.

DF

[EvilDragon]

Originally Posted by gofer

I would vote for more customization of tracks, so Reaper's unified tracks can mimic MIDI track type. I declare abstention from this poll

Yup.

Originally Posted by gofer

Ok, voted no. I think the plugin method is the way to go, apart from volume and pan faders being hopefully switchable to send MIDI data (of any kind I choose).

Knobs don't necessarily need to waste space. They could be any size, form, place or function if they just are improved in that direction.

Word!

[vocalid]

I'm on the same page as Gofer and EvilDragon - Voted no.

[wallace]

Me too.

[Tallisman]

Originally Posted by vocalid

I'm on the same page as Gofer and EvilDragon - Voted no.

ditto

.t

[plamuk]

voted "no" and i strongly echo technogremlin's sentiments, strikes me as much easier to implement.
i still don't understand why it's better for a fader to send midi volume instead of just control the volume of the outgoing audio.

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by nym

i still don't understand why it's better for a fader to send midi volume instead of just control the volume of the outgoing audio.

Not that it's a big deal (it's not at all Nym) but this has been covered over and over, the reason or circumstance why. Try mixing a very large R&B or dance track on a Proteus 2000 or similar without a midi mixer. It can be done but like cutting your toenails with scissors, it's better to use nail clippers.

If you guys want I can record the audio of one of it's demo tracks, which uses only it's internal sounds and effects. I think you might be a little surprised at the result given that there won't be a single audio plugin (eq, comp, etc.) on it anywhere.

On the higher end, do you honestly think anyone using this http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/MotifXS8/ would spend that kind of money only to replace it's sounds with VSTI's? Or might they have some stereo stems from there and be doing a good bit of submixing in midi?

[DarthFader]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

On the higher end, do you honestly think anyone using this http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/MotifXS8/ would spend that kind of money only to replace it's sounds with VSTI's? Or might they have some stereo stems from there and be doing a good bit of submixing in midi?

Funny you should mention that. I have an XS7

DF

[PitchSlap]

Originally Posted by nym

i still don't understand why it's better for a fader to send midi volume instead of just control the volume of the outgoing audio.

Here's why:

If you're sending MIDI to a VSTi on another track, the fader is currently useless and a complete waste of space.

Also MIDI volume in any multisampled VSTi is going to change the texture of the sound (different sample layers being triggered) whereas the audio volume only changes the output volume.

Also it seems like many of the people who are voting no, want the same thing as those voting yes and much of this argument is semantic.

[technogremlin]

Originally Posted by PitchSlap

If you're sending MIDI to a VSTi on another track...

... then just STOP DOING THAT





Just kidding of course. I've been an outboard hardware guy for decades so I do understand the need for some people to get better midi-control on a track. Although I don't really need that myself (gone totally software years ago), that's why I made the statement about an option to set a track to midi-control (should go nice with the 'one track paradigm'), because I actually do know what it can do for outboard synths and such

However, I still have a Kawai K1rII lying around that I haven't use for years and when I get my fasttrack ultra I might hook it up again (as I will have a few inputs spare then).

[DarthFader]

Originally Posted by PitchSlap

Here's why:

If you're sending MIDI to a VSTi on another track, the fader is currently useless and a complete waste of space.

Also MIDI volume in any multisampled VSTi is going to change the texture of the sound (different sample layers being triggered) whereas the audio volume only changes the output volume.

Also it seems like many of the people who are voting no, want the same thing as those voting yes and much of this argument is semantic.

Well. Volume shouldn't change the timbre. Velocity should.

I agree that a lot of people voting no should be voting yes....

If you "just want an inspector" ... that would be a YES vote, because, presumably that inspector wouldn't be on every track, it would just be on "enhanced" midi tracks...(and the primary thing "enhanced" about them could easily be that they have an inspector).

DF

[PitchSlap]

Originally Posted by DarthFader

Well. Volume shouldn't change the timbre. Velocity should.

DF

Yes you guys are correct. It's been so long since I've used a working MIDI fader I forget what it does, lol

[strinxx]

Since my last project, I used Reaper's tracks not only as "one for all", but as "both on one", via "feedback in routing".

This is something I really don't wanna miss anymore!
I can mix my VSTi's different channels on the same track where I recorded midi. Awesome!

But I'd definetely be happy about sort of an "Inspector" thing, with all kind of controls in it... Pitch would work on both midi and audio, Velocity just for midi of course... not quite sure what would make sense here, to meet anyone's needs...

I'd see it like the SWS track list,maybe.
Something "floating", so I could place it wherever I wanted to, maybe even totally customizable...?
I could use it then, but I wouldn't have to.

Just some thoughts....

[With an E]

How about...

an unobtrusive grey icon, just like the folder icon, on each horizontal mixer field? This won't clash with the other icons or overload the area visually.

A capital M or DIN plug icon which opens a dropdown box with all the midi stuff for that track.

The same thing could be available on a per item basis within each track with both being effective. eg:

Click grey MIDI icon, apply a +12 pitch shift for the track - on one iem on the track click the grey MIDI icon and select -12....

The whole track, except that one item, is shifted up an octave.

Just the basics are needed to speed up workflow; pitch, patch, velocity scale........

[plamuk]

Also MIDI volume in any multisampled VSTi is going to change the texture of the sound (different sample layers being triggered) whereas the audio volume only changes the output volume.

you're talking about midi velocity, not volume...2 completely different things. cc7 is one thing, i would puke my pants if suddenly my track's volume fader suddenly started effing with my midi velocity. velocity, more than anything, is something that should be controlled via dedicated user-created TCP control - this functionality is native already with the included velocity control js fx.

lawrence, i have zero proteus experience, but i believe i can see your point. i'm envisioning a scenario where multiple midi channels control multiple instruments on a multitimbral synth/sampler/workstation outputting to a stereo track. incoming midi from your controller show up in individual tracks by channel perhaps in reaper, and then are exported to the proteus. here, i would definitely want cc7 volume control over the proteus easily accessible, as the stereo track prohibits a user from just using the volume fader to control different elements individually.

multi-out hardware ftw in this case...but in the meantime there's always this: (and TCP controls)



someday i reckon all TCP controls (including buttons and vol faders) will be more flexibly assigned