|
|
|
03-21-2012, 06:44 PM
|
#81
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 4,868
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muzikman2008
Er... cos they are shit and expensive??? ;-)
|
Sorry, you must either be a pirate or haven't looked recently. Logic is cheaper than REAPER commercial license, and while I dislike many things about it, its MIDI implementation is pretty solid.
__________________
˙lɐd 'ʎɐʍ ƃuoɹʍ ǝɥʇ ǝɔıʌǝp ʇɐɥʇ ƃuıploɥ ǝɹ,noʎ
|
|
|
03-21-2012, 07:06 PM
|
#82
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
|
It's not all that uncommon for people to do midi in one app and audio in another. Many PT users have been doing that for years I think... producing in 64-bit Logic - big midi productions - and dropping stems into PT for the subsequent audio tracking and mixing.
Whatever works best.
|
|
|
03-21-2012, 07:39 PM
|
#83
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Perth, W.A.
Posts: 1,708
|
I believe that not having dedicated midi tracks has complicated the issue and makes it harder for the devs to incorporate many of the user requirements in the midi area.
Introducing a dedicated midi track modeled on some other successful implementation should be a strong consideration I think.
|
|
|
03-21-2012, 07:50 PM
|
#84
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 9,048
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned
Hmm, to be honest, no it doesn't. It makes most sense for the people who really are most concerned about this to simply not use REAPER for serious MIDI editing at all. Hence, those people aren't here, or at least aren't here primarily for their MIDI needs, and will at best point out that some other app has a better feature x. The situation isn't much different than say 5 years ago, and I'll bet you that it will still be the same in 5 years. I'm not going to waste much time on that. It would be a waste of Cockos' talents too, which imho quite obviously lie elsewhere.
|
there is no greater break in workflow than needing to transfer between 2 different applications. i'm the sort of artist that will constantly go back and change things. so i'll be laying down some bass, and then feel a riff, and then notice that if i changed the beat a little it would improve everything. so then, go back to my other application, which is either using a bunch of ram, or needing to wait to be reopened and then make the change, and then export into audio daw, but first save all settings in all plugins so that they can be reopened in reaper or, bounce it all, and transfer audio, and go through that every time even if say i want to change the timber a bit. it's way too much. the midi of reaper almost pushes me to that extent but it's not quite that bad. having a second host going is really the worst possible case for me. even rewire i dislike.
if i was just going to make something once midi, and then add some small bit of audio tracks, then maybe. but i couldn't imagine the audio of another such program to be that bad that i'd want to go into reaper to do it. especially with all the tweaking and customization it needs to get it awesome. if reaper is going to compete with other DAWs it needs better midi.
if it weren't for the fact that i don't wanna have to have another application with a different set of formats and filetypes for my tracks, it might seriously be enough to send me to cubase or potentially studio one, but it's lack of macros really sucks. both of those have great midi functionality and although the rest would not be ideal i could get used to it. plus the extra powerful features they have.
but i don't need all that stuff. i just want the basics so my DAW doesn't limit me and get in my way. i want to work quick and simply. but the midi is not that. the audio is. and sure parts like cubase would be cool. grouping items would be sick. the wave editor like in cubase would be awesome, snap to nearest zero crossing would be cool. being able to cut and stretch audio, or quantize audio more easily would be awesome, like cubase with hit points.
but the midi is not good begging to be awesome. it's a good start, it's good basics, but it needs work imo. for me it's a top priority.
i don't see how you can say "just use another program" as defense for not needing to fix the midi. you're willing to use an entirely different program for the midi. you're supporting my point. the midi of reaper is so bad that you use another program. the audio good enough that you use it for audio.
so i rest my case. the audio portion of reaper is good, whilst the midi portion is bad, hence fix the midi portion, and it will all be good.
__________________
Slava Ukraini
|
|
|
03-21-2012, 08:06 PM
|
#85
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,972
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazed
Introducing a dedicated midi track modeled on some other successful implementation should be a strong consideration I think.
|
This will break the whole amazing concept of Reaper. I'm disagree
|
|
|
03-21-2012, 08:12 PM
|
#86
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sound asleep
there is no greater break in workflow than needing to transfer between 2 different applications.
|
Well (with respect) ... that's one of those "my way is the only way people work" determinations. I know music producers who do exactly that... produce beats or music tracks in FLStudio or something and record the artists singing, guitars or whatever in PTLE or whatever.
Nothing to do with "workflow" since those things happens days, weeks, even months apart. Write a song (if using midi) in whatever sequencer works best for you, finish it, print stems, put it away and move to the next one. Track vocals or live drums in PT or Reaper or whatever else you want two months later when you decide to use that track on an artist.
Obviously, the best case would be not to run into anything in your audio workstation (for midi) that would make you consider doing that, but people have. Especially earlier PT users. They did that a lot I think and Logic was the goto sequencer, especially since it could use the TDM stuff.
Last edited by Lawrence; 03-21-2012 at 08:20 PM.
|
|
|
03-21-2012, 09:20 PM
|
#87
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Perth, W.A.
Posts: 1,708
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viente
This will break the whole amazing concept of Reaper. I'm disagree
|
How so?. If you don't want to use a dedicated midi track then you would not use it and could just use the original.
I would like to ask though. Is there a big demand to mix midi with other other media types on a track do you think?
|
|
|
03-21-2012, 09:33 PM
|
#88
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 22,567
|
what does a midi track accomplish that a normal track that has been altered for midi and saved as a template not accomplish?
|
|
|
03-21-2012, 09:45 PM
|
#89
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 8,676
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazed
Is there a big demand to mix midi with other other media types on a track do you think?
|
I'm not sure if there's a big demand but I keep all my MIDI and audio items together as takes and offline VSTi's before mixing. This gives me the chance to go back and modify something if it's needed. The "universal" track paradigm is one of the greatest things in REAPER for me. Having a dedicated MIDI (or instrument) track would probably ruin my workflow.
__________________
Pressure is what turns coal into diamonds - Michael a.k.a. Runaway
|
|
|
03-21-2012, 09:54 PM
|
#90
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Fort Worth TX
Posts: 1,757
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sound asleep
there is no greater break in workflow than needing to transfer between 2 different applications. i'm the sort of artist that will constantly go back and change things. so i'll be laying down some bass, and then feel a riff, and then notice that if i changed the beat a little it would improve everything.... it's way too much. the midi of reaper almost pushes me to that extent but it's not quite that bad. having a second host going is really the worst possible case for me...
if i was just going to make something once midi, and then add some small bit of audio tracks, then maybe. but i couldn't imagine the audio of another such program to be that bad that i'd want to go into reaper to do it. especially with all the tweaking and customization it needs to get it awesome. if reaper is going to compete with other DAWs it needs better midi...
i just want the basics so my DAW doesn't limit me and get in my way. i want to work quick and simply. but the midi is not that. the audio is...
but the midi is not good begging to be awesome. it's a good start, it's good basics, but it needs work imo. for me it's a top priority.
i don't see how you can say "just use another program" as defense for not needing to fix the midi. you're willing to use an entirely different program for the midi. you're supporting my point. the midi of reaper is so bad that you use another program. the audio good enough that you use it for audio.
so i rest my case. the audio portion of reaper is good, whilst the midi portion is bad, hence fix the midi portion, and it will all be good.
|
this, +11
|
|
|
03-21-2012, 10:51 PM
|
#91
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Perth, W.A.
Posts: 1,708
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Brian Merrill
what does a midi track accomplish that a normal track that has been altered for midi and saved as a template not accomplish?
|
Dedicated tcp interaction for one.
|
|
|
03-21-2012, 10:55 PM
|
#92
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Perth, W.A.
Posts: 1,708
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro
I'm not sure if there's a big demand but I keep all my MIDI and audio items together as takes and offline VSTi's before mixing. This gives me the chance to go back and modify something if it's needed. The "universal" track paradigm is one of the greatest things in REAPER for me. Having a dedicated MIDI (or instrument) track would probably ruin my workflow.
|
Oh like for archiving? Would be nice if had archiving on tracks actually complete with a filter on track view.
|
|
|
03-21-2012, 11:29 PM
|
#93
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 913
|
Well, me too. I love Reaper, but find myself using FL Studio more and more for MIDI. I can easily create a drum track and lay down and edit a few MIDI parts. And join sections into a song. Quick!
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 12:28 AM
|
#94
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 8,676
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazed
Oh like for archiving? Would be nice if had archiving on tracks actually complete with a filter on track view.
|
Kinda. I "apply track FX's to items" and offline VSTi's before mixing so I end up with two takes in my items, MIDI in the background and audio playing. If I need to modify something I just switch to the MIDI take, set the VSTi online, tweak, apply FXs to items (if I have EQ's or comps in that track I bypass them first), offline the VSTi again and now I have 3 takes: MIDI, old audio (just for comparison purposes) and the new audio item. This is like heaven for me, real worklfow booster.
__________________
Pressure is what turns coal into diamonds - Michael a.k.a. Runaway
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 04:48 AM
|
#95
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near Cambridge UK and Near Questembert, France
Posts: 22,754
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazed
I believe that not having dedicated midi tracks has complicated the issue and makes it harder for the devs to incorporate many of the user requirements in the midi area.
Introducing a dedicated midi track modeled on some other successful implementation should be a strong consideration I think.
|
YES!! YES!! YES!!
(Not that I am trying to go too over the top about this....)
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 04:54 AM
|
#96
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near Cambridge UK and Near Questembert, France
Posts: 22,754
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viente
This will break the whole amazing concept of Reaper. I'm disagree
|
How do you think giving the option of dedicated MIDI tracks (where the output is pipe-able to an audio track via the VSTi of your choice) is going to break the "whole concept" of Reaper?
Reaper has so many options already, many of which were undoubtedly a lot harder to implement than having dedicated MIDI tracks AS AN OPTION I just dont see why this would destroy reaper.
And as someone who is STILL having to fire up my Amiga 1200 to do any real work in MIDI, I would love to see this step taken, as it simplifies so many other things that could then be implemented.
Hell, I might even break down and learn how to script MIDI plugins if the devs gave us this.
I can always copy the coding methodology of the umpteen plugs I already have in Bars 'n Pipes Pro....
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 05:24 AM
|
#97
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro
I'm not sure if there's a big demand but I keep all my MIDI and audio items together as takes and offline VSTi's before mixing. This gives me the chance to go back and modify something if it's needed. The "universal" track paradigm is one of the greatest things in REAPER for me. Having a dedicated MIDI (or instrument) track would probably ruin my workflow.
|
I gave up on the dedicated midi track thing a couple of years ago but what I never understood in the discussion, is why it would have to remove the universal track? You can (I think) have both?
It wouldn't (in this hypothetical) ruin your workflow since what you use now would still be there. In my current method the midi is still there, right inside the actual audio clip, you can revert back at any time and/or keep the audio and just drag the midi data out... or edit both in the one clip instead of having two grouped clips... so the midi track class doesn't prevent that.
That media format is open and published btw, and nobody bit on my suggestion for adding it to Reaper. Its essentially a "track template" in a media clip, with audio, midi, and plugin and instrument references.
That request for a dedicated midi track class was (in the past) always viewed as if it would somehow remove the universal track when all people were asking for was an "addition", not to remove anything. It would be an option, not a change of the current track paradigm.
But again, I gave up on that one quite awhile back. Not gonna happen.
Last edited by Lawrence; 03-22-2012 at 05:50 AM.
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 05:33 AM
|
#98
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence
I gave up on the dedicated midi track thing a couple of years ago but what I never understood in the discussion, is why it would have to remove the universal track? You can (I think) have both?
It wouldn't (in this hypothetical) ruin your workflow since what you use now would still be there. In my current method the midi is still there, right inside the actual audio clip, I can revert back at any time and/or keep the audio and just drag the midi data out... or edit both in the one clip.
|
I was thinking the same thing! The universal track concept doesn't have to go away if a dedicated midi track is brought in.
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 05:37 AM
|
#99
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 4,868
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sound asleep
i don't see how you can say "just use another program" as defense for not needing to fix the midi. you're willing to use an entirely different program for the midi. you're supporting my point. the midi of reaper is so bad that you use another program. the audio good enough that you use it for audio.
|
No I'm not supporting your point at all - I just agree on the premise that MIDI in REAPER kind of sucks. But my conclusion is entirely different from yours, almost the opposite in fact: you want integration, I want modularity. You want to make Cockos' excellent devs focus exclusively on the type of thing they have proven to be consistently bad at. I want them to focus (almost) exclusively on what they're best at.
__________________
˙lɐd 'ʎɐʍ ƃuoɹʍ ǝɥʇ ǝɔıʌǝp ʇɐɥʇ ƃuıploɥ ǝɹ,noʎ
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 05:53 AM
|
#100
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NA - North Augusta South Carolina
Posts: 4,294
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivansc
dedicated MIDI tracks (where the output is pipe-able to an audio track via the VSTi of your choice) is going to break the "whole concept" of Reaper?
|
You can already treat midi'ed VSTis on a track *as* audio, and you can also send their outputs to another track and treat that track as if it's audio. What do you mean?
IMO one of the great things about Reaper is that I *don't* have to worry about jumping through hoops to record a midi track, it's just another track - that's a plus.
1) There's not a "lot" of people doing heavy duty film scoring, and those that do seem to lean towards Logic. That's fine, but I don't think Justin and Co. are going to bend over backwards to make a handful of people *hopefully* switch from their Old Faithful;
2) For simply recording a midi part, it can't be easier in Reaper. You hit record, it records? It's quite easy to tweez the timing of a note - can it be easier than grabbing the edge and dragging it?
3) If one is doing editing on a MASS of midi notes - maybe there are ways of doing this in a tricky manner. BUT, I'd suggest that once you cross into that territory, it's a different field - you're neither recording, nor composing, you're re-editing something that already exists. in which case...
3) Programs like Sibelius, Finale or Progression work better IMO. They're specialized and I would think fairly large undertakings from a programming standpoint. I would prefer Reaper to be more bullet proof on the audio and menu side than to try to be a half-assed version of either of those programs.
4) Fruity started out as a drum VSTi. In that respect I think it's as streamlined and well thought out as it probably gets, but the reverse engineering that has been pasted onto it to make it go "further" is clunky IMO. A VSTi trying to be a DAW.
I don't think these things should try to do what the other things do well: DAWs, notation programs, VSTis.
But that's just my opinion. My only complaint about midi in Reaper now is that I still can't figure out why a piano roll scrolls left>right instead of bottom>top.
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 05:55 AM
|
#101
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 22,567
|
just as a factual note, FLStudio did NOT start out as a VSTi.
VSTi capability was not added until v4 or 5. Before that, it was a standalone drum sequencer and arranger.
- FLstudio user since v2.72
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 05:59 AM
|
#102
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Brian Merrill
just as a factual note, FLStudio did NOT start out as a VSTi.
VSTi capability was not added until v4 or 5. Before that, it was a standalone drum sequencer and arranger.
- FLstudio user since v2.72
|
I was actually gonna say that, thanks.
Next thing, someone is gonna say Cubase and Logic started out as midi sequencers and tacked on audio, yada, yada, when the reality was that people were recording audio "using" those apps as the center of hybrid setups long before they even had audio tracks.
It's not like those people weren't recording audio, they were, to tape, with (in at least one case) clips in the sequencer that marked where you recorded on tape. When computers got faster they just brought the audio in.
I recorded everything to my Tascam 8-Track "from" (controlled by) Cubase, before it had audio tracks. All of the midi parts went to the 2-track mixdown deck "first generation" from the synths. 7 tracks for vocals or acoustic parts, s smpte track, and literally tons of midi tracks.
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 06:19 AM
|
#103
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,972
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chip mcdonald
You can already treat midi'ed VSTis on a track *as* audio, and you can also send their outputs to another track and treat that track as if it's audio. What do you mean?
IMO one of the great things about Reaper is that I *don't* have to worry about jumping through hoops to record a midi track, it's just another track - that's a plus.
1) There's not a "lot" of people doing heavy duty film scoring, and those that do seem to lean towards Logic. That's fine, but I don't think Justin and Co. are going to bend over backwards to make a handful of people *hopefully* switch from their Old Faithful;
2) For simply recording a midi part, it can't be easier in Reaper. You hit record, it records? It's quite easy to tweez the timing of a note - can it be easier than grabbing the edge and dragging it?
3) If one is doing editing on a MASS of midi notes - maybe there are ways of doing this in a tricky manner. BUT, I'd suggest that once you cross into that territory, it's a different field - you're neither recording, nor composing, you're re-editing something that already exists. in which case...
3) Programs like Sibelius, Finale or Progression work better IMO. They're specialized and I would think fairly large undertakings from a programming standpoint. I would prefer Reaper to be more bullet proof on the audio and menu side than to try to be a half-assed version of either of those programs.
4) Fruity started out as a drum VSTi. In that respect I think it's as streamlined and well thought out as it probably gets, but the reverse engineering that has been pasted onto it to make it go "further" is clunky IMO. A VSTi trying to be a DAW.
I don't think these things should try to do what the other things do well: DAWs, notation programs, VSTis.
But that's just my opinion. My only complaint about midi in Reaper now is that I still can't figure out why a piano roll scrolls left>right instead of bottom>top.
|
Absolutely agree!
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 06:29 AM
|
#104
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
|
Quote:
IMO one of the great things about Reaper is that I *don't* have to worry about jumping through hoops to record a midi track, it's just another track - that's a plus.
|
Just to be clear, before I will myself away from this circular discussion - nobody is jumping through hoops to pick track classes in any sequencer I know of. They drop an instrument in and play it.
The track classes already know what they are. If you drop in audio it makes an audio track, if you drop in midi or a VI it makes a midi track. There's nothing really bad about it... for "recording a midi track". They work exactly like it does in Reaper, drop in an instrument and hit record and start playing your midi keyboard.
No hoops... just straw. <-- Clarification: The "straw" is the oft-repeated suggestion or implication that anyone wants to get rid of the universal track class?
Last edited by Lawrence; 03-22-2012 at 06:37 AM.
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 07:38 AM
|
#105
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 24,790
|
Even if there are not a "lot" people doing orchestral mockups in Reaper, should that mean that their request are to be disregarded en masse?
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 08:30 AM
|
#106
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 8,676
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence
I gave up on the dedicated midi track thing a couple of years ago but what I never understood in the discussion, is why it would have to remove the universal track? You can (I think) have both?
It wouldn't (in this hypothetical) ruin your workflow since what you use now would still be there. In my current method the midi is still there, right inside the actual audio clip, you can revert back at any time and/or keep the audio and just drag the midi data out... or edit both in the one clip instead of having two grouped clips... so the midi track class doesn't prevent that.
That media format is open and published btw, and nobody bit on my suggestion for adding it to Reaper. Its essentially a "track template" in a media clip, with audio, midi, and plugin and instrument references.
That request for a dedicated midi track class was (in the past) always viewed as if it would somehow remove the universal track when all people were asking for was an "addition", not to remove anything. It would be an option, not a change of the current track paradigm.
But again, I gave up on that one quite awhile back. Not gonna happen.
|
Well, it's simple, if a MIDI (or instrument) track is added then all MIDI improvements/effort will be based, from now on, on that special track and probably cool stuff like MIDI groove quantize, etc., won't be available for regular "universal" tracks (and I doubt devs would code things twice).
I have a track template set up for MIDI work. I insert that track, r-click on the inserts and choose "add FX". There, I have a list which includes a sub-list called "VSTi" where I have all my VSTi's. I spend less than 5 seconds setting everything up before I can play an instrument. If I need to build new tracks for audio routing, let's say for Kontakt, then I save a special track template for that.
It's OK to have options and I'd also like to see improvements on the MIDI area of REAPER but in my opinion a dedicated MIDI (or instrument) track isn't gonna solve people's problems at all. Organize yourself and you'll work efficiently.
__________________
Pressure is what turns coal into diamonds - Michael a.k.a. Runaway
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 08:38 AM
|
#107
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,290
|
Hard not to agree with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro
Organize yourself and you'll work efficiently.
|
Hear, here!
__________________
"F" off.
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 09:38 AM
|
#108
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro
Well, it's simple, if a MIDI (or instrument) track is added then all MIDI improvements/effort will be based, from now on, on that special track and probably cool stuff like MIDI groove quantize, etc., won't be available for regular "universal" tracks (and I doubt devs would code things twice).
|
Not sure why that would be if media items are treated the same as they are now? The track is just a different container / TCP, that's all.
Not you (especially not you specifically ) but these discussions quickly turn into right vs wrong based on speculation. I personally don't know if the above would be the case or not and the devs won't comment so it's all speculation.
It's really not worth going back and forth over since it's not anything they'll even do anyway... so thanks MN... I appreciate your input on that.
Quote:
It's OK to have options and I'd also like to see improvements on the MIDI area of REAPER but in my opinion a dedicated MIDI (or instrument) track isn't gonna solve people's problems at all. Organize yourself and you'll work efficiently.
|
It's ok to disagree and I disagree there for multiple reasons, most of which have to do with what (imo, no offense) amounts to a hack of the TCP for midi controls. I've organized that multiple ways and there is no way to make it as efficient as a dedicated midi track panel... for me... mmv and all that.
The little stick on knobs and sliders aren't (imo) a substitute for dedicated (specifically designed) midi track controls. Duplicate tracks below, where's my midi controls at that track height?
Can you look at the default faders and pans across 32 tracks and know which are controlling midi cc, audio or both?
A "midi track" would be the same universal track that's there now, that has a TCP designed specifially for midi, that's all. Nothing else changes on the track or how the track works. The reason this TCP doesn't work as well, imo, mmv, is that it was designed after an app that doesn't actually sequence midi at all... Vegas. See the difference between Vegas's and ACID's TCP's.
But again, it's all moot since we're talking about something that isn't even planned to happen anyway. But (sorry) nobody can change my mind (for my preference) that sticking ReaControlMidi on the TCP is as efficient as most any dedicated midi track panel.
And it's ok to disagree about that. No biggie. I have an inordinate amount of respect for you so the last thing I want to do is have a minor disagreement turn into something more than that. Thanks MN.
Just as a reminder, my comments here are just discussion, not anything I need in Reaper. I pretty much stopped sequencing in Reaper long ago. My comments are only intended to add (I hope) some value to the ongoing discussion, that's all. Makes no real difference to me personally if they change it or not.
Last edited by Lawrence; 03-22-2012 at 10:37 AM.
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 10:09 AM
|
#109
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,111
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence
It's ok to disagree and I disagree there for multiple reasons, most of which have to do with what (imo, no offense) amounts to a hack of the TCP for midi controls. I've organized that multiple ways and there is no way to make it as efficient as a dedicated midi track panel... for me... mmv and all that.
The little stick on knobs and sliders aren't (imo) a substitute for dedicated (specifically designed) midi track controls.
But again, it's all moot since we're talking about something that isn't even planned to happen anyway. But (sorry) nobody can change my mind (for my preference) that sticking ReaControlMidi on the TCP is as efficient as most any dedicated midi track panel.
|
I agree.
Let's not talk about dedicated MIDI/instrument tracks. We don't need any changes to the "all item types on every track" system.
What we (some of us) need is:
1) Support for dedicated MIDI controls in TCP/MCP panels. Patch, Bank, Channel, Output, Recording mode, Input quantize, etc.
2) New TCP/MCP layouts (WALTER) using those MIDI controls.
3) Easy and fast way to manage TCP/MCP layouts for new/existing tracks. Current method is too slow.
jnif
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 10:14 AM
|
#110
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
|
When people say "midi track" my assumption is that that's what they mean, the TCP, for arrange anyway. Maybe my assumption there was wrong though.
But the rest of the "track" is just a media lane.
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 10:36 AM
|
#111
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Southern California
Posts: 642
|
While I applaud the effort to "improve" MIDI, or at least "make it look and behave the way I specifically and individually want and need it to", I'm surprised that very heavy MIDI users gravitate to REAPER at all. It's not known to be good at MIDI, you can go through hundreds of threads on this and other audio forums that show it has never been particularly good at MIDI and that not much has developed despite user requests. It's even free to try the full version so you can see for yourself
If I can use a car analogy (as I often seem to) it'd be like me sending hundreds of letters to Porsche about how it's really a pain to try and pickup my kids and their friends from school in my Cayman because it only has two seats. when really it's just the wrong choice of tool for the job. It's a great car, it's just not the right car for this application
I kind of look at REAPER the same way, It's a great DAW but it's not the right choice for heavy MIDI users
(ooh just thought of another analogy. It's like a woman marrying a man and trying to change him into the right man rather than just marrying the right man in the first place... yeah that works)
Personally I'd rather the Devs work on ReaInsert as I personally use a lot of outboard gear but, at the same time since the License only cost me 40 bucks, I don't want to spend hundreds of bucks for a what is basically for me a computerised tape recorder with a lot of functions I will never need or use and I realize I am probably not representative of the core user base of the application I am prepared to accept workarounds
Last edited by Bristol Posse; 03-22-2012 at 10:55 AM.
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 10:49 AM
|
#112
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bristol Posse
I kind of look at REAPER the same way, It's a great DAW but it's not the right choice for heavy MIDI users
|
Agree. I thought the point of these recurring discussions was to maybe help it become more of that thing. If that's not one of the goals then it's all irrelevant... agree.
If the point is "Just shut up and sequence in something else..." well... I'm 50% there, it's the "shutting up about it" part I need to get a better handle on.
I promise I will not respond to the next iteration of that recurring thread titled ...
"Why do people say Reaper's midi....?"
No matter how many times it's suggested those people are nuts... or doing something wrong or whatever. Promise. Piehole closed.
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 11:15 AM
|
#113
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Southern California
Posts: 642
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence
Agree. I thought the point of these recurring discussions was to maybe help it become more of that thing. If that's not one of the goals then it's all irrelevant... agree.
|
It seems to be the goal of the MIDI user base, IE I have a DAW that is not great at MIDI and I want it to improve rather than get a different DAW that is already good at MIDI
Historically, from the evidence thus far however, it does not seem to have been a goal of the Devs
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 02:04 PM
|
#114
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 454
|
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bristol Posse
... I'm surprised that very heavy MIDI users gravitate to REAPER at all. It's not known to be good at MIDI, you can go through hundreds of threads on this and other audio forums that show it has never been particularly good at MIDI and that not much has developed despite user requests.
|
Maybe it's because heavy MIDI users looked at how amazing the audio part of Reaper was and hoped that the MIDI part would catch-up? I certainly did (even though I wouldn’t consider myself a heavy MIDI user)
When I first dwelled into this Reaper "world", I browsed through hundreds of posts on this forum and I was constantly amazed to see users posting bug reports, FRs, etc, that were often being addressed at the "speed of light" by the devs, something I hadn't witnessed with other DAWs devs. That's when I said to myself; this is it, this is the DAW that will do "everything" for me. What I hadn’t noticed immediately was that the devs were much less inclined to respond to requests concerning MIDI, and now I’m starting to realize this may not change anytime soon, if ever.
What I don't understand though is why the devs wouldn’t want Reaper's MIDI to be the best it could? If they have little/less “affinity” to MIDI related stuff, then fine, I can understand that. We each have our own preferences/strengths/weaknesses, but there is a solution to fixing that “weakness”; they should try to get on their programming team someone who does have a deep affinity to MIDI, someone that loves and breathes MIDI… Then Reaper wouldn’t be "just" another DAW, it would become the "Reaper of DAWs"
"A chain is only as strong as its weakest link"
Last edited by chucky5p; 03-22-2012 at 02:30 PM.
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 02:26 PM
|
#115
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 8,676
|
@Lawrence:
It's OK It's good to have these discussions.
I'm not a MIDI guy but I find some odd behaviors here and there with REAPER's MIDI, specially when it comes to editing (mostly CC's). A change in the TCP controls wouldn't benefit my workflow I think, just because REAPER's MIDI isn't track based but item based. If that changes, then I'll probably be more interested in that.
We have to remember that REAPER's MIDI is based on an extension, just like sws or any other. It isn't really part of REAPER, the whole editor and its behavior is built upon an extension. That's probably the reason why it isn't trivial for devs to add/fix stuff for MIDI.
__________________
Pressure is what turns coal into diamonds - Michael a.k.a. Runaway
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 02:49 PM
|
#116
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 454
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro
We have to remember that REAPER's MIDI is based on an extension, just like sws or any other. It isn't really part of REAPER, the whole editor and its behavior is built upon an extension. That's probably the reason why it isn't trivial for devs to add/fix stuff for MIDI.
|
I didn't know that. Yes, that could explain a lot of things. I thought that Reaper's MIDI was an integrated part of its design.
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 03:24 PM
|
#117
|
-blänk-
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,359
|
As of the MIDI as an extension thing, to my understanding it is the MIDI editors that are realized as a dll, not Reaper's MIDI as such. Schwa has explained at some point when this same concern came up that the dll nature creates no restrictions at all for the development. I do hope the future proves him right, he knows his stuff very well and doesn't tend to talk PR bubble.
Ironically we also periodically see threads that are much like this one and complain that the devs are doing nothing but MIDI.
I don't share the impression that nothing or very little is done on the MIDI front. I invite everybody to install Reaper v2.4something, or even a version amidst the 3.x cycle, before CC editing was massively improved. Work a bit, then go back to a current version and tell me again there have been no or only little changes. I mean 4.0 has seen massive improvements with the advent of mouse modifiers alone, not even mentioning all the other stuff. And we're just at 4.2 right now. Granted, the MIDI related changes since 4.0 have been mostly fixes and slight adjustments of behaviors, but we also see a new feature every now and then. Track MIDI buses in 4.2 finally kicked the 16 channels for ReWire restriction for example, and if I understand the feature right it might as well lead to a similar routing freedom for MIDI as track audio channels do for audio. Some say cool, some say meh, it's always like that.
It's just not the things some (most, or even all of the people in this particular thread) would like to see most urgently.
At which point it should again be mentioned that even the MIDI users do not share the same vision, as can be once again seen in this thread.
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 03:56 PM
|
#118
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Fort Worth TX
Posts: 1,757
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucky5p
Maybe it's because heavy MIDI users looked at how amazing the audio part of Reaper was and hoped that the MIDI part would catch-up?...
bug reports, FRs, etc, that were often being addressed at the "speed of light" by the devs, something I hadn't witnessed with other DAWs devs. That's when I said to myself; this is it, this is the DAW that will do "everything" for me. What I hadn’t noticed immediately was that the devs were much less inclined to respond to requests concerning MIDI, and now I’m starting to realize this may not change anytime soon, if ever.
What I don't understand though is why the devs wouldn’t want Reaper's MIDI to be the best it could? If they have little/less “affinity” to MIDI related stuff, then fine, I can understand that. We each have our own preferences/strengths/weaknesses, but there is a solution to fixing that “weakness”...
|
agreed
Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer
As of the MIDI as an extension thing, to my understanding it is the MIDI editors that are realized as a dll, not Reaper's MIDI as such. Schwa has explained at some point when this same concern came up that the dll nature creates no restrictions at all for the development. I do hope the future proves him right, he knows his stuff very well and doesn't tend to talk PR bubble...
I don't share the impression that nothing or very little is done on the MIDI front. I invite everybody to install Reaper v2.4something, or even a version amidst the 3.x cycle, before CC editing was massively improved. Work a bit, then go back to a current version and tell me again there have been no or only little changes. I mean 4.0 has seen massive improvements with the advent of mouse modifiers alone, not even mentioning all the other stuff. And we're just at 4.2 right now. Granted, the MIDI related changes since 4.0 have been mostly fixes and slight adjustments of behaviors, but we also see a new feature every now and then. Track MIDI buses in 4.2 finally kicked the 16 channels for ReWire restriction...
even the MIDI users do not share the same vision, as can be once again seen in this thread.
|
also agreed
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 04:26 PM
|
#119
|
Pixel Pusher
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Blighty
Posts: 4,950
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence
It's ok to disagree and I disagree there for multiple reasons, most of which have to do with what (imo, no offense) amounts to a hack of the TCP for midi controls. I've organized that multiple ways and there is no way to make it as efficient as a dedicated midi track panel... for me... mmv and all that.
The little stick on knobs and sliders aren't (imo) a substitute for dedicated (specifically designed) midi track controls. Duplicate tracks below, where's my midi controls at that track height?
Can you look at the default faders and pans across 32 tracks and know which are controlling midi cc, audio or both?
|
Just FYI, if the ability to add new buttons using WALTER, assigned to action numbers, were added ...which would be a very, very big deal far beyond just MIDI stuff... we could theme you some TCP layouts with some/only MIDI controls. And then we'd be on the right road for, in the future, extending that to give you midi faders, dropdowns, all that jazz. Within the universal track concept and utilizing existing functionality in an incremental improvement manner. Which to me gives it a much higher 'likely to ever happen' factor.
|
|
|
03-22-2012, 04:51 PM
|
#120
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
|
Thanks WT and MN. My intent is to pretty much stay out of it but I didn't want to be rude and ignore you or MN's replies.
WALTER rocks. REAPER rocks. It's all good.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:57 AM.
|