Old 07-03-2010, 05:58 AM   #1
rdolmat
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 80
Default Quantize in main window?

hi folks.

i can't seem to be able to quantize midi notes within the main Reaper arrange window (without having to open the midi piano roll).

is this possible? can I just select a midi region and hit the Q button to quantize all notes in that region (without opening piano roll)?

thanks!!!
rdolmat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2010, 07:37 AM   #2
PitchSlap
Human being with feelings
 
PitchSlap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 3,207
Default

People have been asking for this for years.

It's not possible.

The next closest thing is to open the inline editor, quantize, then close the inline editor.

But, for anyone that uses MIDI regularly, that's still two steps too many...
__________________
FRs: v5 Media Explorer Requests, Global Quantization, Session View
Win10 64-bit, Reaper 5(x64), Core i7-5700HQ, 16GB RAM, GeForce GTX 960M, SSD
PitchSlap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2010, 07:54 AM   #3
rdolmat
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PitchSlap View Post
People have been asking for this for years.

It's not possible.

The next closest thing is to open the inline editor, quantize, then close the inline editor.

But, for anyone that uses MIDI regularly, that's still two steps too many...


can't believe it's been years in the making

a little disappointing....looks like I'll have to be clicking around more than necessary. oh well! There are worse things in the world!

(I wonder if I can make an action script thingy to open region in inline editor/select all/open quantize window)?

thanks!
rdolmat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2010, 08:07 AM   #4
PitchSlap
Human being with feelings
 
PitchSlap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 3,207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdolmat View Post


can't believe it's been years in the making

a little disappointing....looks like I'll have to be clicking around more than necessary. oh well! There are worse things in the world!

(I wonder if I can make an action script thingy to open region in inline editor/select all/open quantize window)?

thanks!
Nope. Can't do that either because actions from the Main window and the MIDI editor can't be combined in a custom action.

Yeah it sucks, but just because it's always been this way doesn't mean it won't change. MIDI has been getting some improvements lately...
__________________
FRs: v5 Media Explorer Requests, Global Quantization, Session View
Win10 64-bit, Reaper 5(x64), Core i7-5700HQ, 16GB RAM, GeForce GTX 960M, SSD
PitchSlap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2010, 09:24 AM   #5
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,502
Default

There's a give an take with engineering decisions like this so you take the good with the bad. The universal track class is good (loved by many) but the flip side of that (no specific midi track classes) is well, no midi track classes, which means no midi fader and pan with the standard fader/pan and generally no standard TCP items for midi like a transpose setting on every TCP where you just type in a value and some other things that are pretty standard on midi track TCP's or inspectors.

You can't really stack everything necessary to address midi, instrument and audio tracks onto one TCP without it being really cluttered, without an inspector or similar... especially if most of the standard things can't be optionally hidden. So the alternative is to have to go elsewhere for those things or use keystrokes.

Last edited by Lawrence; 07-03-2010 at 09:35 AM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2010, 09:33 AM   #6
rdolmat
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
There's a give an take with engineering decisions like this so you take the good with the bad. The universal track class is good (loved by many) but the flip side of that (no specific midi track classes) is well, no midi track classes, which means no midi fader and pan with the standard fader/pan and generally no standard TCP items for midi like a transpose setting on every TCP where you just type in a value and some other things that are pretty standard on midi track TCP's.

You can't really stack everything necessary to address midi, instrument and audio tracks onto one TCP without it being really cluttered, with an inspector or similar... especially if most of the standard things can't be optionally hidden. So the alternative is to have to go elsewhere for those things or use keystrokes.
so...you're basically saying it's never gonna happen?

We'll never be able to quantize in the arrange page?

That's all we're asking for ....not really talking about TCP and inspectors and vol/pan, MIDI CC #s etc....

just a key command to apply quantize on a MIDI region. Surely that's treated differently than an audio region? non?
rdolmat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2010, 09:39 AM   #7
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,502
Default

I'm saying that quantize, transpose, midi channel, patch and bank lists and the multiple other midi related things that some people may want to be immediately available and visible in arrange via a mouse (and for feedback and/or current status purposes) require some additional considered thought because there is only one track class to put all of that stuff on and no inspector to share the load.

That's all.

They can put all of that stuff on the TCP right now along with the things that are there now if they wanted to, but it would be one big cluttered mess.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2010, 09:42 AM   #8
rdolmat
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
I'm saying that quantize, transpose, midi channel, patch and bank lists and the multiple other midi related things that some people may want to be immediately available and visible in arrange via a mouse (and for feedback and/or current status purposes) require some additional considered thought because there is only one track class to put all of that stuff on and no inspector to share the load.

That's all.

They can put all of that stuff on the TCP right now along with the things that are there now if they wanted to, but it would be one big cluttered mess.
AH!!! I see.

that brings up another thought....how DO we select a simple patch change assigned to a track (ie: I have a GM unit, and I want to patch change to instrument #34 on first play).

since they don't have patch-bank selection on the TCP...is it somewhere else?

(I have A LOT to learn about Reaper! I need to forget all I learned with Pro Tools, Cubase, Logic, Sonar etc!!!)
rdolmat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2010, 10:02 AM   #9
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,502
Default

You use a GM patch plugin (I guess) on the track and/or manually put it into a controller lane for the track in the key editor. Obviously, in most sequencers those things are on the midi track class TCP like with Cubase, Acid, etc and are pretty standard and they give visual feedback of status.

Since there is no midi track class there can't really be (yet, without some clever thought on when and how to show them) "context specific" controls for midi like that without it being kind of a mess. Or those things would be all over your audio track TCP's when you're not even using midi.



I think to address this kind of thing Reaper will eventually need some kind of inspector. When it comes to workflow in general, having things on one single flat work surface (imo, as opposed to various dialogs popping up) is always better. An inspector, info line, or other various methods hosts use to get at those kinds of things are just optional expansions of that same single flat work surface.

So you kinda have multiple choices as to how you want the information presented and how you'd prefer to see or edit it.


Last edited by Lawrence; 07-03-2010 at 10:16 AM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2010, 10:06 AM   #10
rdolmat
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
You use a GM patch plugin (I guess) on the track and/or manually put it into a controller lane for the track in the key editor. Obviously, in most sequencers those things are on the midi track class TCP like with Cubase, Acid, etc and are pretty standard and they give visual feedback of status.

Since there is no midi track class there can't really be (yet, without some clever thought on when and how to show them) "context specific" controls for midi like that without it being kind of a mess.



I think to address this kind of thing Reaper will eventually need some kind of inspector.
I agree!!
rdolmat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2010, 10:24 AM   #11
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,502
Default

If I had Justin's ear over a shot of Jack Daniels I would honestly ask why there isn't an *optional* real midi track class aside from the universal track class.

I'm not really sure why being able to say that one thing "Only one track class for everything!" is so important to so many people, since it would still be there afterward, the universal track, anyway.

This would be more, not less. A midi track with cc fader, pan, meter and all the standard stuff on the TCP. Don't need it? Ignore it.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2010, 10:32 AM   #12
rdolmat
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
If I had Justin's ear over a shot of Jack Daniels I would honestly ask why there isn't an *optional* real midi track class aside from the universal track class.

I'm not really sure why being able to say that one thing "Only one track class for everything!" is so important to so many people, since it would still be there afterward, the universal track, anyway.

This would be more, not less. A midi track with cc fader, pan, meter and all the standard stuff on the TCP. Don't need it? Ignore it.
I LOVE IT!!!

exactly! Why the resistance to an additional track type?
rdolmat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2010, 01:47 PM   #13
PitchSlap
Human being with feelings
 
PitchSlap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 3,207
Default

I really don't think this is an issue of needing separate track types. Surely Reaper can tell if a selected item contains audio or MIDI data.

It feels more like a prioritization of development than any engineering roadblock. I think if there were any 'hard-core' MIDI users over at CockosHQ quantizing from the main window would've been possible years ago, if only because the devs would likely be just as frustrated in their own compositions by this 'less-than-eloquent' implementation, as so many others who do rely heavily on MIDI appear to be.
__________________
FRs: v5 Media Explorer Requests, Global Quantization, Session View
Win10 64-bit, Reaper 5(x64), Core i7-5700HQ, 16GB RAM, GeForce GTX 960M, SSD
PitchSlap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2010, 11:15 PM   #14
run, megalodon
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,860
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PitchSlap View Post
I really don't think this is an issue of needing separate track types. Surely Reaper can tell if a selected item contains audio or MIDI data.

It feels more like a prioritization of development than any engineering roadblock. I think if there were any 'hard-core' MIDI users over at CockosHQ quantizing from the main window would've been possible years ago, if only because the devs would likely be just as frustrated in their own compositions by this 'less-than-eloquent' implementation, as so many others who do rely heavily on MIDI appear to be.
Agreed. Why not just tuck it into the "item processing" menu in the clip right click menu, which already has a few midi actions in it? Is there a feature request for this by the way?
run, megalodon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2010, 11:20 PM   #15
PitchSlap
Human being with feelings
 
PitchSlap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 3,207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by run, megalodon View Post
Agreed. Why not just tuck it into the "item processing" menu in the clip right click menu, which already has a few midi actions in it? Is there a feature request for this by the way?
I don't think there is an 'official one' for the issue tracker, but there's been a plethora of threads over the years for this exact thing...
__________________
FRs: v5 Media Explorer Requests, Global Quantization, Session View
Win10 64-bit, Reaper 5(x64), Core i7-5700HQ, 16GB RAM, GeForce GTX 960M, SSD
PitchSlap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2010, 02:10 PM   #16
DarthFader
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 324
Default

Deja Vu

DF
DarthFader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2010, 02:22 PM   #17
DarthFader
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
If I had Justin's ear over a shot of Jack Daniels I would honestly ask why there isn't an *optional* real midi track class aside from the universal track class.

I'm not really sure why being able to say that one thing "Only one track class for everything!" is so important to so many people, since it would still be there afterward, the universal track, anyway.

This would be more, not less. A midi track with cc fader, pan, meter and all the standard stuff on the TCP. Don't need it? Ignore it.
I have no idea why so many people are so resistant to this often talked about idea.

I think they should just go ahead and implement, and people who don't like it don't have to use it.

DF
DarthFader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2010, 03:08 PM   #18
gofer
-blänk-
 
gofer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,159
Default

Well, I for one am not really sure why it is so important to have fixed track types.

I can't find it right now, but we had a discussion once about introducing a tagging system for tracks. You could configure different sort of plugins/controls/color/icon or whatnot for a track, and call it eg (tadaaa) MIDI. Calling up a tag for a track would set it up the way you want it without giving up the possibility to change it anytime to anything else or do any mixture to get the flavor you dig.

There is not really much missing, technically, to get there. The biggest milestone to achieve is a (largely) improved presentation of the track's controls and buttons.

Regarding quantization I don't get the connection to track types at all. If we get quantize controls on track headers, they make equal sense for audio as for MIDI, so the same controls that do audio quantize could do the very same thing for MIDI (with a context menu that allows to chose between item vs MIDI content quantize).
I really don't see where the universal track paradigm is an obstacle, enlighten me.

(btw, relying heavily on MIDI is not the same as relying heavily on quantize...)
gofer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2010, 03:22 PM   #19
DarthFader
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 324
Default

It doesnt have to be a fixed track type; like you say it could just be a "tag" that you can change later.

It just has to be tagged or marked or whatever that it's a MIDI track and not just a Universal track.

DF
DarthFader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2010, 03:43 PM   #20
gofer
-blänk-
 
gofer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,159
Default

The thinking is that it isn't tagged as "a MIDI track", but as whatever you want. MIDI is just an example name to make you guys happy with it. It stays a universal track, just the visible controls change to those you want to see.

Saying "just a universal track" puts the perspective upside down, as the universal track is the whole thing and the track with MIDI controls just a partial excerpt of the whole picture.
gofer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2010, 04:35 PM   #21
DarthFader
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 324
Default

What would you want besides Midi and Audio?

I think we should stop going round in circles about what it's called -- we can start out with Midi and Audio -- and just get those features onto the TCP by default already

If we start out with "Audio" and "Midi" that would be good enough, or "Universal" and "Midi".

I don't care how they implement it; they could weld a ReaMidiControl in thre and just change the presentation.

It's the exposition of the features that I think we all want not worrying about how they do it internally.

But yes I think people should be able to change the track type at will and not have it be a "fixed" type. It really just controls UI presentation.

I wouldn't say that a "Midi" track just gets "partial" -- a Midi track with an embedded VSTi would still have an audio path, it's just that the Pan/Volume would send Midi by default and rechannelize the data to an "output" channel.

And it would expose more features -- not less -- than a normal track such as Patch Name, etc.

DF
DarthFader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2010, 04:52 PM   #22
gofer
-blänk-
 
gofer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,159
Default

Ah Deal.

I don't think you find people reluctant to a versatile presentation of track header /mcp strip content. It's just the incorporation of additional crippled track types many (including your's truly) don't want to accept when it comes to this discussion.

I would not want Pan/volume send MIDI on a track that contains a VSTi. I much prefer to do volume and pan in the audio realm. MIDI volume and pan I personally would only want on tracks that send MIDI to an outboard synth under the premise that I can't get the audio back as separate audio streams per MIDI channel.

Remember that you can have patch names and stuff on a normal track, that's why I say partial. A track tagged MIDI doesn't need to be able to do more than a normal track. Anything that we want a MIDI track to be able to do would be possible on a normal track. If not yet it needs to be implemented (Quantize, track I/O, whatnot).

Besides MIDI and Audio there would of course be Bus, Aux, Rewire, Instrument and certainly more if you think about it. All of them can do well with their own set of controls and behaviors.


Btw, one track type I do wish was there would be Input tracks. They would be listed in the input selection fields of the ordinary tracks and could contain FX that you want to have applied before the signal reaches the track's inputs. (say an input MIDI transformation, could be aftertouch filter, keyboard splitting, octave shift, velocity curves, controller transform and clamping... all those things I do with Logic and a virtual MIDI port at the moment)

Last edited by gofer; 07-04-2010 at 05:07 PM.
gofer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2010, 06:03 PM   #23
rdolmat
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer View Post
I would not want Pan/volume send MIDI on a track that contains a VSTi. I much prefer to do volume and pan in the audio realm.
unless you're controlling a multi-timberal VSTi (16 channel) via several separate 'midi' tracks?
rdolmat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2010, 07:41 PM   #24
DarthFader
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdolmat View Post
unless you're controlling a multi-timberal VSTi (16 channel) via several separate 'midi' tracks?
Exactly. Many of these have built in FX etc anyway and I return them as 2 channels of Audio so midi pan and volume does in fact make sense in many (but not all) VSTi scenarios

Right now we can right click to set the pan law; how hard would it be to be able to set whether its midi pan and volume or not? Of course the channel for this pan and midi volume should be associated with the overall track output channel (eg the track should have an assigned midi channel, or All, with an assigned channel rechannelizing the data)
DF
DarthFader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2010, 07:46 PM   #25
DarthFader
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer View Post
It's just the incorporation of additional crippled track types many (including your's truly) don't want to accept when it comes to this discussion.
I don't think anyone is (seriously) considering "crippling" anything.

I think this "cripple" stuff is FUD that needlessly inflames the passions of the masses.

It's amazing how productive so many daws are with this so called "crippled" mechanism, and yet one has to "hop around on crutches" with reaper to get much done in the midi realm.

I think calling it an "enhanced for Midi" track is more appropriate and politicly saleable.

DF
DarthFader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2010, 10:02 PM   #26
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,502
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer View Post
Remember that you can have patch names and stuff on a normal track, that's why I say partial. A track tagged MIDI doesn't need to be able to do more than a normal track. Anything that we want a MIDI track to be able to do would be possible on a normal track. If not yet it needs to be implemented (Quantize, track I/O, whatnot).
I hear you Gofer. I'm not all that optimistic about the end result of that in the absence of an inspector that shares that load while burning less real estate.



It looks very cool. But it's not practical at all for me, not for mixing midi CC's across a large midi production when compared to a standard midi midi mixer / console. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and wait and see how it all shakes out.

Last edited by Lawrence; 07-04-2010 at 10:21 PM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2010, 10:28 PM   #27
bennisixx
Human being with feelings
 
bennisixx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: the woods, Arkansas
Posts: 1,063
Default

is it realy that hard to open the midi editor? you could have done it 100 times reading this thread.....

this ain't pro tools and I for one dont want it to be...


b
bennisixx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2010, 10:32 PM   #28
DarthFader
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
I hear you Gofer. I'm not all that optimistic about the end result of that in the absence of an inspector that shares that load while burning less real estate.
Is there any way to jsut show the TCP knobs when the track is selected? That could help in the real estate issue.

Also I think that a "midi track" inspector should only show everything when the track is selected...for real estate reasons as above

DF
DarthFader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2010, 10:50 PM   #29
PitchSlap
Human being with feelings
 
PitchSlap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 3,207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bennisixx View Post
is it realy that hard to open the midi editor? you could have done it 100 times reading this thread.....

this ain't pro tools and I for one dont want it to be...


b
Yeah, it's not hard to open the MIDI editor.

But imagine years from now when you've done it thousands and thousands of times, knowing that ~60% of the time, it was unnecessary. Think of all the other stuff you could've been doing. When the creative impulse strikes, I'd prefer to be able to concentrate on the music, not opening editor windows and clicking though dialogs.
__________________
FRs: v5 Media Explorer Requests, Global Quantization, Session View
Win10 64-bit, Reaper 5(x64), Core i7-5700HQ, 16GB RAM, GeForce GTX 960M, SSD
PitchSlap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2010, 11:05 PM   #30
DarthFader
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 324
Default

I was waiting for someone to pitch slap that guy
+1

That reminds me -- what's the opposite of point and click?

Beg and plead.

Too much of this has a beg and plead interface, that's why it's so logical for users to beg and plead for a better interface for it.
DF

Last edited by DarthFader; 07-04-2010 at 11:11 PM.
DarthFader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2010, 11:38 PM   #31
bennisixx
Human being with feelings
 
bennisixx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: the woods, Arkansas
Posts: 1,063
Default

yo darth I don't know what you are saying or if you are typing at me... but if you wanted someone ELSE to do something("pitch slap that guy"), eat a di@$ do it yourself
man I'm cool with asking for things, but really? quantize something you ain't focused on?

-pitchslap, that hurt jk man ---this is your opinion and thant is what makes reaper...opinions...period

look I know, thousands of times you do this, but you said when creativity strikes....its quantize, not create, you already did this....

now that I think of it ...screw it, I don't want to be "that" guy
I run midi out of the box so I am happy.
if we can get this GREAT!

sory if I came off as a d*&^

Last edited by bennisixx; 07-04-2010 at 11:39 PM. Reason: peace
bennisixx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2010, 01:19 AM   #32
gofer
-blänk-
 
gofer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdolmat View Post
unless you're controlling a multi-timberal VSTi (16 channel) via several separate 'midi' tracks?
No. In that case I would use separate outputs and audio volume and pan. If that's not possible I'd either choose another VSTi that does the trick or individual instances. Maybe that is a relict of the old hardware days where you would avoid CC7 if you find another way to keep S/N ratio high.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthFader
It's amazing how productive so many daws are with this so called "crippled" mechanism, and yet one has to "hop around on crutches" with reaper to get much done in the midi realm.
And still some of them tried to cludge together a combined MIDI/audio track as an "instrument track" fairly recently, (which you have to split into it's separate MIDI/audio component tracks before you are allowed to do certain things).
We won't agree on the "hop around on crutches with Reaper" part. As said, I don't see how the (sometimes valid) complaints people have are a result of Reaper's unified tracks. I still believe those complaints can all be solved without giving them up. I just don't want things I do to not be possible because of a track whining "Can't compute, I am MIDI only".

Lawrence:
What makes it not practical is a presentation issue (as far as I can judge the possibilities of code). Reaper's knobs/the whole track header can be improved in many ways to not need so much space, be faders, input fields or whatever and be organized in a much better way than currently. Just because a track can be anything doesn't mean each track has to show you everything. It could show you a subset of it's possibilities and present them in a more variable fashion.
Maybe I am dreaming, but in my layman's understanding of things unified track and usage of plugs for certain things doesn't make it technically impossible to change the look and handling to something like, say, this:


and still keep the possibility to put an audio FX on that same track after the synth - well, that's assumed that the audio of MSGSWThorror (or any hardware synth you use) is routed back to the track via ReaRoute or a VSTi is used - plus have any audio controls you want on the header as well if you are so inclined.
gofer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2010, 01:43 AM   #33
DarthFader
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer View Post
No. In that case I would use separate outputs and audio volume and pan. If that's not possible I'd either choose another VSTi that does the trick or individual instances. Maybe that is a relict of the old hardware days where you would avoid CC7 if you find another way to keep S/N ratio high.
Yes -- that's a relic. It's one way to do things but you shouldn't force everyone to use multiple outs when it's not necessary.

Certainly for many multitimbral samplers I group my midi tracks so they just play out of two channels and it's mixed internally.

I think it's ok for people to say they want to do things X way, but I don't think that means you have to force everyone to do it the same way.

I'm an AND type of person not an OR type of person. So I'd like to see both cases supported.

The case you are proposing is already supported...

And in any case, CC7 and CC10 need to be sent to hardware devices. That being the case, it's sort of a moot argument, since it needs to be there, the only question is should it be supported for VSTi tracks too and sure why not.

As for your other stuff about "Midi only" -- I never said MIDI only. You seem to persist in bandying about that strawman about a "midi only" track.

I'm talking about a track that knows there is midi on it and exposes more stuff in the TCP, not a "midi only" track.

The closest I would get to a "Midi only" track would be a track class that can only GENERATE audio via a VSTi, for instance, and doesn't let you put an audio wave form on it. I don't think that's particularly necessary though.

DF

Last edited by DarthFader; 07-05-2010 at 01:50 AM.
DarthFader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2010, 02:06 AM   #34
gofer
-blänk-
 
gofer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,159
Default

Dang!
I won't ever force someone to do anything my way. What I am saying is you can do what you like right now (granted not yet in the most convenient presentation and yet without quantize and some other things I'd like to see) and that there is no need to change Reaper's track paradigm to make it more convenient for everybody to do his thing his way. I have been asked about whether I would use CC7 on a VSTi and answered. One can equally argue that using CC7 is the relict and audio volume the more modern approach.

Why do you keep dumbing it down to a "track type" problem? I thought we did agree at some point of this discussion that it isn't?
This might be just semantics but I think it's important to make a difference between track types and versatile, customizeable tracks in this discussion.
As soon as you call it "track type", the implication is reducing the possibilities of tracks, not enhancing them. That's why this term should not appear in a FR I will vote for. Because it leads to conclusions I don't support.

Last edited by gofer; 07-05-2010 at 02:11 AM.
gofer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2010, 02:24 AM   #35
DarthFader
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 324
Default

To me "Track Type" is a customization. We can bandy semantics to no end and I don't think it's doing that much good.

But it's not a customization in the sense of just hacking plugins at it, it's something that the application (Reaper) understands and provides more concise UI support for than just hacking plugins at a universal track.

Either way I'm sure you've said it already and I've said it already so let's hear some other peoples opinons as well.

DF
DarthFader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2010, 02:39 AM   #36
gofer
-blänk-
 
gofer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,159
Default

Semantics is important at times. You see it in your poll. Just leave that dreaded term away. Explain what you want it to do and how you'd like to see it implemented and you dodge this whole discussion .
gofer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2010, 08:11 AM   #37
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,502
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer View Post
Lawrence:
What makes it not practical is a presentation issue (as far as I can judge the possibilities of code). Reaper's knobs/the whole track header can be improved in many ways to not need so much space, be faders, input fields or whatever and be organized in a much better way than currently. Just because a track can be anything doesn't mean each track has to show you everything. It could show you a subset of it's possibilities and present them in a more variable fashion.
Maybe I am dreaming, but in my layman's understanding of things unified track and usage of plugs for certain things doesn't make it technically impossible to change the look and handling to something like, say, this:


and still keep the possibility to put an audio FX on that same track after the synth - well, that's assumed that the audio of MSGSWThorror (or any hardware synth you use) is routed back to the track via ReaRoute or a VSTi is used - plus have any audio controls you want on the header as well if you are so inclined.
I agree with you Gofer. A good TCP management system would do it, where you could build your own "classes" from among various buttons and functions and arrange those things how you want. Then you could build your own "midi track". I'm all for that.

I'm keeping an open mind. With the skill level of JCS I have to give them the benefit of the doubt. In the interim, when working with my hardware synths that have thousands of patches and similar I'll stick with sequencers more suited to that task for more complex midi production and mixing of large numbers of midi tracks with outboard gear.

As a reminder that this is just a discussion, not a knock, Reaper isn't the only one with this problem (for me), Studio One has similar issues with midi hardware modules. It also doesn't yet have any real system for addressing them on a global level like other pro sequencers so those things require some annoying workarounds.

Good discussion that was generally absent of rhetoric. Thanks.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2010, 12:41 PM   #38
DarthFader
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bennisixx View Post
look I know, thousands of times you do this, but you said when creativity strikes....its quantize, not create, you already did this....
That's what I think most people don't get -- the midi workflow.

Yes, "someone already did this" and now they are quantizing, it, ON THE WAY to doing something else (like recording the next track).

So unnecessary mousing does in fact hinder the creative process.

If you had to double click every url in a web browser, how many times would a person have to (needlessly) double click on every url until they posted in a forum asking for single click url navigation?

Anyway, there is a poll now in this forum on having an "enhanced" midi track/inspector please vote on it.

DF
DarthFader is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.