Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > MIDI Hardware, Control Surfaces, and OSC

View Poll Results: Should we have an Enhanced for Midi Track Type?
Yes!!! 46 45.10%
Noooooo 52 50.98%
I dont know and/or I don't care 4 3.92%
Voters: 102. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-05-2010, 05:33 PM   #41
gofer
-blńnk-
 
gofer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,154
Default

Of course we can .

Improving those parts you mention is all requested and will be appreciated by not just us MIDI heads, so the odds are looking good, I'd say.
gofer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2010, 05:34 PM   #42
Mercado_Negro
Moderator
 
Mercado_Negro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 8,259
Default

You're really smart. I like the way you added this,

"Additionally as I pointed out on the top post, it's an OPTIONAL track type. Noone has to give up their "beloved" universal track to have this option. I think this is completely lost in the discussion as people think it's either/or."

to your post #37 (just before mine), after you read my comment (time differences between post-editing and my post are obvious).

I posted here because I don't want and I don't need another track type, hence my voting.
__________________
Pressure is what turns coal into diamonds - Michael a.k.a. Runaway
Mercado_Negro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2010, 05:43 PM   #43
DarthFader
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro View Post
You're really smart. I like the way you added this,

"Additionally as I pointed out on the top post, it's an OPTIONAL track type. Noone has to give up their "beloved" universal track to have this option. I think this is completely lost in the discussion as people think it's either/or."

to your post #37 (just before mine), after you read my comment (time differences between post-editing and my post are obvious).

I posted here because I don't want and I don't need another track type, hence my voting.
Yes it's a common misperception so I thought I'd clarify it yet again. If you don't want and/or need that's fine, vote No, I could care less.

What you had posted was "the universal track type fits your needs".

Your needs != everyone's needs.

My needs != your needs.

More ways better than one way.

DF
DarthFader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2010, 05:45 PM   #44
Astro
Human being with feelings
 
Astro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 285
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
I obviously voted yes but I'm also of the opinion that an inspector would probably solve the majority of the root issues driving these kinds of requests.

Yes an Inspector definitely...I know you can kind of build your own.
But a good inspector with a true midi note quantize (not object) on the main arrange page would be awesome...so you dont have to go to the midi editor all the time to tighten notes up if you need to.
Astro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2010, 07:09 PM   #45
pcartwright
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro View Post
I posted here because I don't want and I don't need another track type, hence my voting.
Indeed. Keep it simple, keep it the way it is. One more "no" vote.
pcartwright is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2010, 07:39 PM   #46
Jason Brian Merrill
Human being with feelings
 
Jason Brian Merrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northeastern PA, USA
Posts: 20,833
Default

i absolutely LOVE the fact that pre-fx volume and item volume changes velocity (and the main fader does volume of the whole track). To me, it is an important FEATURE the way it is is great. Maybe if you want the features, request em, and then when we get em, if we do, put em in a track template or something
__________________
Beliefs do not require respect. People do.
Jason Brian Merrill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 06:21 AM   #47
rdolmat
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 80
Default

I don't quite understand the resistance to this MIDI track idea.

If you don't need it, don't use it. End of story.

How many people here use a video track on a daily basis....probably less people than would use a MIDI track. And yet, it's supported in Reaper.

So what's the big difference between that, and a specific MIDI track? Why would you specifically try to deny the availability of a MIDI track to those who want one?
rdolmat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 06:24 AM   #48
Jason Brian Merrill
Human being with feelings
 
Jason Brian Merrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northeastern PA, USA
Posts: 20,833
Default

development time is relevant.
__________________
Beliefs do not require respect. People do.
Jason Brian Merrill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 06:47 AM   #49
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Brian Merrill View Post
development time is relevant.
J makes a good point. Time spent on a new class is time spent. I do think if it serves the purpose it may be time well spent though and it may bring in a gaggle of other users who, at times, may want to just work with external midi and have that 1-to-1 relationship between arrange and mixer in the CC domain.

If the time it takes to do that doesn't add value to the potential audience then it may be a waste of time.

The biggest part of all this (imo) is the "Midi" mixer channel, not necessarily a new arrange class. As Gofer eloquently laid out, that stuff can probably be added to the current universal class with some clever thought. But that doesn't solve the mixer problem. So maybe the middle ground is an optional CC class channel for the mixer? Dunno.

I know Reaper is a new paradigm but (aside from Studio One which also suffers from this problem, even more than Reaper) is there any other sequencer without CC midi mixer channels in the mixer alongside audio channels and/or where arrange fader and pan are generally useless for midi? Not saying there isn't, just asking.

Good discussion. Good points all around I think.

Last edited by Lawrence; 07-06-2010 at 07:25 AM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 09:02 AM   #50
e.g.:
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: USSA
Posts: 31
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
...is there any other sequencer without CC midi mixer channels in the mixer alongside audio channels and/or where arrange fader and pan are generally useless for midi?
Plenty. MIDI isn't handled effectively in most DAWs that I use. It's out-dated technology that's extensive use is practiced by a minority, so it's implementation is quite understandably limited to basics.

I keep hoping for something better.
e.g.: is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 10:18 AM   #51
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by e.g.: View Post
Plenty. MIDI isn't handled effectively in most DAWs that I use. It's out-dated technology that's extensive use is practiced by a minority, so it's implementation is quite understandably limited to basics.
Interesting. I wonder who is buying things like the midi modules below and how they use them effectively from the daw? People buy these things partly because of space concerns and because they already have something with actual piano keys on it. Afaik, using them today is much the same as using midi modules 15 years ago. The only thing that changed is they have many more sounds, memory and they generally sound better.

Some (I think) even have digital outputs so there's no need for additional conversion. Even my Proteus has a S/PDIF output... so it's, when connected that way, like a VSTI with it's own CPU.

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/MotifXSRack/
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/FantomXR/

I guess I'm a relic.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 10:20 AM   #52
xpander
Human being with feelings
 
xpander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Terra incognita
Posts: 4,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by e.g.: View Post
Plenty. MIDI isn't handled effectively in most DAWs that I use. It's out-dated technology that's extensive use is practiced by a minority, so it's implementation is quite understandably limited to basics.

I keep hoping for something better.

MIDI is an industry-standard protocol which is still used a lot, everywhere. It is not easy to change something that really and truly is a worldwide standard and has been that for decades already. Is there really any need for that? Why would anybody want something supposedly better, if they are not even using the age old protocol "extensively"?
xpander is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 10:24 AM   #53
DarthFader
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by e.g.: View Post
Plenty. MIDI isn't handled effectively in most DAWs that I use. It's out-dated technology that's extensive use is practiced by a minority, so it's implementation is quite understandably limited to basics.

I keep hoping for something better.
Your sad devotion to that Ancient Religion *cough*

Outdated technology used by a minority. Last time I did a poll here on that, 80+% of the respondents said they used Midi "Extensively".

Ever seen a movie? Almost all movie soundtracks are heavily Midi oriented.

Ever go to concerts? Keyboard player there? Um ...Midi?

Nothing will surpass Midi, because the fact is that all the vendors agreed on a standard back in the 80s, something that is not likely to be repeated.

Most DAWs support of Midi is hardly "Basic". But Most DAWs STARTED OUT as Midi sequencers, and so have extensive Midi because that's all they did. Later they added audio.

Reaper was the opposite. It came a live when digital audio was a feature that all DAWs had, and it did Audio first and Midi second.

Reaper didn't spend a decade doing Midi before even starting Audio, like most of the big name player daws (DP, Cubase, Logic, Sonar, etc), so understandably, and I would say undeniably, it has a lot of catching up to do in that area.

DF

Last edited by DarthFader; 07-06-2010 at 10:31 AM.
DarthFader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 10:30 AM   #54
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthFader View Post
Outdated technology used by a minority. Last time I did a poll here on that, 80+% of the respondents said they used Midi "Extensively".
DF
I think his point was that the only midi being used by very many is mostly across the cable to the daw or the midi input box. After that, it's all in the box. He's saying that you may not find a lot of rigs with midi cables running all over the place to various things being used in real time. The only current context in the prosumer world is generally what it does inside the box or using it to sync an MPC or something.

I think he's probably right about that, it's kind of a shame though that so many daws are (if that's the case, dunno) generally ignoring it or giving it cursory coverage.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 10:34 AM   #55
DarthFader
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
I think his point was that the only midi being used by very many is mostly across the cable to the daw or the midi input box. After that, it's all in the box. He's saying that you may not find a lot of rigs with midi cables running all over the place to various things being used in real time. The only current context is generally what it does inside the box.

I think he's probably right about that, it's kind of a shame though that so many daws are just ignoring it.
So? He's still mistaken IMHO. The midi cable has just changed to be a USB cable that transports Midi protocol.

Midi is critical to music production and there are plenty of Midi features that are lacking in Reaper whether it's Midi features that can be used on VSTis or external boxes or both.

Lambasting MIDI is nonsensical IMHO.

As noted above, most DAWs (especially the big players) support of Midi is far from merely "basic".


DF
DarthFader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 10:47 AM   #56
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthFader View Post
As noted above, most DAWs (especially the big players) support of Midi is far from merely "basic".
DF
True. Anyway, as relates to most Reaper users who bother to speak to it publicly one way or another some of those things beyond the basics aren't currently necessary for many of them so... it is what it is. Besides, I think the devs already stated they don't develop by committee... but an overwhelming "want" for something does enter their thought processes.

I voted yes with you for the heck of it but the poll is losing, no real surprise there, it's been kinda done before , and to be honest, actually losing with 40% is a shockingly high result, I expected much lower... like 10%.

Accept defeat graciously even if 71 people is probably only .001% of the number of people actually using Reaper. At some point you just have to wave the white flag and move on.



Anything beyond that just creates bad will.

Last edited by Lawrence; 07-06-2010 at 10:55 AM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 10:47 AM   #57
xpander
Human being with feelings
 
xpander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Terra incognita
Posts: 4,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthFader View Post
So? He's still mistaken IMHO. The midi cable has just changed to be a USB cable that transports Midi protocol.

Midi is critical to music production and there are plenty of Midi features that are lacking in Reaper whether it's Midi features that can be used on VSTis or external boxes or both.

Lambasting MIDI is nonsensical IMHO.

As noted above, most DAWs (especially the big players) support of Midi is far from merely "basic".


DF
I agree. The confusion seems to be in misunderstanding of what MIDI actually is. Its a protocol, a language if you will. The technological means to write, edit, play and transfer it are changing along the times and nowadays most of it happens inside a computer...not necessarily going anywhere else. That still wouldn't mean we should get rid of it, the MIDI itself. So what if it's old and kinda basic, it should be just that much easier to apply then?
xpander is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 11:02 AM   #58
DarthFader
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
Besides, I think the devs already stated they don't develop by committee... but an overwhelming "want" for something does enter their thought processes.
..
Accept defeat graciously even if 71 people is probably only .001% of the number of people actually using Reaper. At some point you just have to wave the white flag and move on.
The two sentences are somewhat contradictory. If they don't develop by commitee, it doesn't matter what the poll numbers are.

And 71 isn't enough respondents to make it a stastically relevant poll.

Additionally many people who want an Inspector still voted no on the poll.

But yes it's clear to me that nothing is going to move fast in Midi land -- suggestions for alternative DAWs?
DF
DarthFader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 11:48 AM   #59
technogremlin
Human being with feelings
 
technogremlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2,539
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthFader View Post
suggestions for alternative DAWs?
MIDI-wise nothing comes close to old Cubase running on an Atari

If I would still have some significant MIDI-gear running I would seriously run my old Atari/Midex/Cubase setup for MIDI and have it in some way synced to my current DAW/Reaper combo. I still have that stuff lying around but no reason left to fire it up.
technogremlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 11:49 AM   #60
DarthFader
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 324
Default

I create Polls because it's a way to have a conversation with some votes.

I think you're reading too much into it.

DF
DarthFader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 11:59 AM   #61
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthFader View Post
I create Polls because it's a way to have a conversation with some votes.

I think you're reading too much into it.

DF
I get that. I think we're kinda misunderstanding each other here. Sorry if I derailed your thread.

Thanks and apologies. I'll go back and delete that post to avoid going farther off topic.

Thanks.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 12:48 PM   #62
pcartwright
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
Anything beyond that [white flag reference] just creates bad will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthFader View Post
suggestions for alternative DAWs?
It took all of 15 minutes to generate a message with the air of ill will.
pcartwright is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 02:02 PM   #63
DarthFader
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pcartwright View Post
It took all of 15 minutes to generate a message with the air of ill will.
Asking for Alternative Daws in the meantime isn't meant to generate ill will.

It's meant to be practical. Things I want and need (like Notation) just aren't in Reaper.

That doesn't mean I don't want to use Reaper -- I do -- but it's clear to me that I need to use something else as well for a lot of my production.

There is no ill will there -- that's a projection.

No need to be defensive constantly, plenty of people are that way and it doesn't seem all that healthy honestly.

DF
DarthFader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 02:43 PM   #64
pcartwright
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthFader View Post
Things I want and need (like Notation) just aren't in Reaper.
I can't help you with sending MIDI data to external controllers or anything like that, but I know there has been some work done to integrate a score editor to Reaper as an extension (http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=51870) and some folks have started using Notion3 in rewire mode to supplement Reaper (http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=48472).
pcartwright is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 05:13 PM   #65
rdolmat
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
He's saying that you may not find a lot of rigs with midi cables running all over the place to various things being used in real time.
I've still got at least, I can count, 18 separate MIDI cables running through my studio for rack control, MCU, external control surfaces, 8 port MIDI XT interface, rack modules, SMPTE sync box for ADR etc.

Just because one person uses Reaper on his laptop with an internal 1/8" audio output does not mean everything else is out of date

rdolmat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 07:05 PM   #66
MakeANote
Human being with feelings
 
MakeANote's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 23
Default

I'm not sure if this has been broached yet, but would it cause programming difficulties if the universal track sent a MIDI CC#7 and CC#10 signal for volume / pan adjustments along with the audio chain? This way, both are able to be automated. More 'obscure' MIDI controls could still be adjusted using the current means, but it would make the existing track Volume / Pan controls 'useful' in MIDI terms?

Additionally, this could mean track fade in / out tools might also transmit ramped CC#7 values to give MIDI fade-in / out.

Some sort of programming response would be appreciated.
__________________
www.makeanote.org

Last edited by MakeANote; 07-06-2010 at 07:09 PM. Reason: Additional info added
MakeANote is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 08:38 PM   #67
Guod3
Human being with feelings
 
Guod3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MakeANote View Post
I'm not sure if this has been broached yet, but would it cause programming difficulties if the universal track sent a MIDI CC#7 and CC#10 signal for volume / pan adjustments along with the audio chain? This way, both are able to be automated. More 'obscure' MIDI controls could still be adjusted using the current means, but it would make the existing track Volume / Pan controls 'useful' in MIDI terms?

Additionally, this could mean track fade in / out tools might also transmit ramped CC#7 values to give MIDI fade-in / out.

Some sort of programming response would be appreciated.
Alternative uses for the track audio vol and pan controls to incorporate midi have been canvassed in this place many times.

Its not so much "programming difficulties" but the side effects that stem from such an add on and how they affect program design and behavior going into the future.

It is already possible to insert midi control knobs directly into the TCP. It is not possible to make the track audio vol and pan invisible, unfortunately.
Guod3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 09:41 PM   #68
DarthFader
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Brian Merrill View Post
i absolutely LOVE the fact that pre-fx volume and item volume changes velocity (and the main fader does volume of the whole track). To me, it is an important FEATURE

Does anyone know if this is accurate? It seems odd that "pre-fx volume" would affect velocity -- that seems like a bug. If it does what would be the neutral setting?

DF
DarthFader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 09:43 PM   #69
MakeANote
Human being with feelings
 
MakeANote's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 23
Default

Thanks for the reply, Guod3. I guess this is where the discussion to create a MIDI track type comes from, so the existing track controls can be utilised effectively without 'adverse side effects'.

It seems unusual, though, that having a universal track that currently records incoming MIDI data can't then have it's faders routed out to that same data.

Thanks again.
__________________
www.makeanote.org
MakeANote is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 09:53 PM   #70
Guod3
Human being with feelings
 
Guod3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MakeANote View Post
It seems unusual, though, that having a universal track that currently records incoming MIDI data can't then have it's faders routed out to that same data.
Agreed its a "rough edge" in the program for sure.

I like the idea of "track skins" (my term). It means that although the underlying track is universal, it can be presented to the user in varying forms appropriate to its current use.
Guod3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2010, 05:49 AM   #71
lunker
Human being with feelings
 
lunker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lucas, TX, USA (via Luleň, Sweden)
Posts: 933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthFader View Post
Does anyone know if this is accurate? It seems odd that "pre-fx volume" would affect velocity -- that seems like a bug. If it does what would be the neutral setting?

DF
Yes, MIDI velocity is multiplied by the pre-fx volume. It follows the standard dB formula: multiplier = 10 ^ (x dB / 20)

So 0 dB = 1, -1 dB = 0.89, +1 db = 1.12, etc.

I don't consider it a bug. Like JBM, I think it's a wonderful feature.
__________________
Best Regards, Ernie "lunker" Lundqvist
REAPER (non commercial license)
BDSM (Bad Dog Studio Musicians)

Last edited by lunker; 07-07-2010 at 05:59 AM.
lunker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2010, 06:13 AM   #72
Jeffos
Mortal
 
Jeffos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: France
Posts: 1,969
Default

IMHO, among other things, we would be able to define MIDI tracks by ourselves with tose 2 combined FRs:
- http://forum.cockos.com/project.php?issueid=524 (beeing able to re-assign TCP/MCP controls)
- http://forum.cockos.com/project.php?issueid=228 (beeing able to hide TCP/MCP controls)
Jeffos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2010, 07:41 AM   #73
e.g.:
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: USSA
Posts: 31
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthFader View Post
So? He's still mistaken IMHO. The midi cable has just changed to be a USB cable that transports Midi protocol.

Midi is critical to music production and there are plenty of Midi features that are lacking in Reaper whether it's Midi features that can be used on VSTis or external boxes or both.

Lambasting MIDI is nonsensical IMHO.

As noted above, most DAWs (especially the big players) support of Midi is far from merely "basic".


DF
The extensive use of MIDI by the end-user is rare. I don't mean that they don't use a DAW's MIDI editor. I don't mean that they don't use MIDI keyboards. I don't mean that they don't use MIDI learn. If this is what you consider extensive use of MIDI, then you have made my point.

And whether or not the MIDI data is transferred via USB or DIN is not the point either.

The fact that there are only two or so rack modules available these days is testament to the fact that MIDI's role as an active and dynamic force in the studio is going the way of control voltage. Most users only know MIDI as something working in the box to control hard and soft synths. Few understand CC, RPN, NRPN or SysEx or know the simple stuff (like channel 10 is often reserved for percussion).

MIDI has been grandfathered to virtual studio technology. If you think that software developers don't want a better protocol than MIDI, you should think again. The existence of OSC and the proposal of HD Protocol is evidence.

Why is hoping for a better protocol (such as HD with higher range/resolution and more channels) seen as "sad devotion to an ancient religion" or even "lambasting"? I don't understand. Despite MIDI 1 and 2 updates, the way that MIDI actually works (not how it's delivered) hasn't changed since its inception in 1983. This is as amazing as the fact that a standard and royalty free protocol was reached in the first place.

MIDI implementation in Reason/Record, Pro Tools, REAPER, FL Studio, and Ableton Live is less than "extensive". Some better than others, but none are comprehensive.

My studio and performances are perhaps 98% MIDI driven. I have an appreciation for it, and a desire to see it improved.

Last edited by e.g.:; 07-07-2010 at 08:00 AM.
e.g.: is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2010, 10:15 AM   #74
DarthFader
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lunker View Post
Yes, MIDI velocity is multiplied by the pre-fx volume. It follows the standard dB formula: multiplier = 10 ^ (x dB / 20)

So 0 dB = 1, -1 dB = 0.89, +1 db = 1.12, etc.

I don't consider it a bug. Like JBM, I think it's a wonderful feature.
How is it not a bug? It means that midi Volume events will NEVER get sent to the VSTi, even if it's a multitimbral VSTi?

How would one in fact send an actual volume to the VSTi?

It's of course a bug -- if people want a Midi Velocity offset/multiplier, they can do that Prefx with any number of MIDI JS.

Making Volume do that is, frankly, assinine in my opinion.

It's a "for dummies" solution.


Not only that -- what it means is if you have a GM track, say, that has midi volume and pan events on it, and they control the relative mixing, there is NO WAY to use that on a VSTi.

The Volume events will now change the TIMBRE of the notes by affecting velocity, instead of changing the VOLUME of the channel in the (VSTi's internal multitimbral mixer) like they should!!

How would one actually have volume do volume and not this stupid velocity multiplier?

Not only does it make me want to puke and is in fact "crippled" but it would make musicians pull their hair out to no end trying to figure out what is going on.

This is broken beyond belief and proof if anything that Reaper has SERIOUS problems with Midi.

Additionally Gofer is mistaken in this thread http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?p=532902 where he says "On a side note, MIDI CC7 is not really meant as a parameter to be moved. Originally (in the old days) CC7 is set fixed at the start of a song to do the overall leveling and CC11 is used to do the "moving" automation."

CC7 is not "Fixed" and CC11 is NOT for moving automation!

CC11 is for EXPRESSION control, such as the player dynamically changing the organ volume WHILE PLAYING. CC7 is for Automating/Setting the Level, and CC11 is like a "sub volume" that lets the player dynamically "express" himself musically, while being able to have the expression relative to the track volume.

It's unbelievable that people (and the devs) don't understand the spec, and then change it to suit their will, and then people think this huge bug is a "feature".

Amazing. Is Audio Volume going to add a little EQ too now? Wow. Stunning.

Not trying to be insulting, but wow, floored by this and the lack of understanding of it's implications by the devs and the users.

NOTE: On further reading it seems there is confusion as to whether CC7 actually gets changed to velocity or just the track volume envelope does. Anyone tested this?

DF

Last edited by DarthFader; 07-07-2010 at 10:40 AM.
DarthFader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2010, 11:07 AM   #75
lunker
Human being with feelings
 
lunker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lucas, TX, USA (via Luleň, Sweden)
Posts: 933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthFader View Post
How is it not a bug? It means that midi Volume events will NEVER get sent to the VSTi, even if it's a multitimbral VSTi?

Not only that -- what it means is if you have a GM track, say, that has midi volume and pan events on it, and they control the relative mixing, there is NO WAY to use that on a VSTi.
You are mistaking what is actually affecting the velocity. The pre-fx volume envelope, the item volume handle, and the "normalize" volume fader (in the item properties dialog) are used as multipliers. (Be aware that they all affect the signal, so that the final velocity is dependent on the overall volume determined by all three of those parameters.)

CC 7 works as expected, and you can use it to send MIDI volume information to a VSTi or MIDI hardware.

Personally, I feel this is an area where the Reaper team will not be able to please everyone. You suggest that we can use JS effects for velocity -- others might suggest that you use JS effects to achieve what you want with volume.

Six of one; half a dozen of the other.
__________________
Best Regards, Ernie "lunker" Lundqvist
REAPER (non commercial license)
BDSM (Bad Dog Studio Musicians)

Last edited by lunker; 07-07-2010 at 11:17 AM.
lunker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2010, 11:11 AM   #76
DarthFader
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lunker View Post
You are mistaking what is actually affecting the velocity. The pre-fx volume envelope, the item volume handle, and the "normalize" volume fader (in the item properties dialog) are used as multipliers.

CC 7 works as expected, and you can use it to send MIDI volume information to a VSTi or MIDI hardware.

Personally, this is an area where the Reaper team will not be able to please everyone. You suggest that we can use JS effects for velocity -- others might suggest that you use JS effects to achieve what you want.

Six of one; half a dozen of the other.
Then why dont they call it a "Velocity" handle? Normally this is handled by putting a "Velocity multiplier" option on the track (inspector) itself, which of course we don't have in reaper.

I don't know why anyone would need a "velocity envelope" either. It seems that volume should send volume not velocity, that's why it's called volume and not velocity eh?

Has nothing to do with JS per se it has to do with contorting and twisting the meaning of ordinary words.

Bill Clinton would be all over this like a bad suit on a politician.

It makes a HECK of a lot more sense for the volume envelope to affect VOLUME -- so that you can do fade ins and fade outs smoothly, which is why it's supposed to be VOLUME -- than it does to make it send VELOCITY instead which makes the timbre of your instrument change...Who would want a fade of the timbre compared to a fade of the velocity? This is head banging type of stupid in my book.

DF

Last edited by DarthFader; 07-07-2010 at 11:19 AM.
DarthFader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2010, 11:30 AM   #77
lunker
Human being with feelings
 
lunker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lucas, TX, USA (via Luleň, Sweden)
Posts: 933
Default

Sure, think of it as a velocity handle, then. A rose by any other name ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthFader View Post
I don't know why anyone would need a "velocity envelope" either. Who would want a fade of the timbre compared to a fade of the velocity?
I use a velocity envelope to simulate a gradual change in playing style over time (e.g., going from lightly touching the piano keys to pounding on them).

Apparently I am not the only one who likes this feature.
__________________
Best Regards, Ernie "lunker" Lundqvist
REAPER (non commercial license)
BDSM (Bad Dog Studio Musicians)
lunker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2010, 11:34 AM   #78
DarthFader
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 324
Default

Sure I can see why people would want that "occasionally" but that's something you should just automate yourself.

I think the far more desired behavior would be having it effect volume not velocity.

And I think the false naming and essentially secret behavior of what's going on, certainly to most users, is completely broken and nonsensical.

MIDI is hard enough, now people have to track down why the timbre of their hi hat is changing when it shouldnt just because they put a VOLUME envelope on a track? Really borked IMHO whether or not some existing users like it.

It's also not a rose by any other name -- now you have Velocity envelopes (called volume) but no Volume envelopes even though it is called volume, so now you can't even have true volume envelopes.

It's a turkey by any other name, but some people like turkey.

It's all bait and switch. If you ordered Steak and got Turkey, would some people be happy?

Perhaps.

Does that make it the correct behavior? Not by a longshot imho.

DF

Last edited by DarthFader; 07-07-2010 at 11:39 AM.
DarthFader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2010, 11:46 AM   #79
pcartwright
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthFader View Post
Not trying to be insulting [...]
You are being insulting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthFader View Post
Most DAWs support of Midi is hardly "Basic". But Most DAWs STARTED OUT as Midi sequencers, and so have extensive Midi because that's all they did. Later they added audio.
Use one of the MIDI oriented DAWs you referenced if you need these MIDI features so badly.

I'd also like to add that your rant posts don't help your cause.
pcartwright is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2010, 11:49 AM   #80
DarthFader
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pcartwright View Post
You are being insulting.



Use one of the MIDI oriented DAWs you referenced if you need these MIDI features so badly.

I'd also like to add that your rant posts don't help your cause.
I'm calling a spade a spade.

What should I do, thank these guys for such a confusing and nonsensical implementation that amounts to bait and switch?

Sorry - I'm not a supplicant, and honesty is the currency I deal with.

I'm willing to give props where they are due, and anti-props where they are due.

Whitewashing or being too afraid to discuss negative items doesn't help anyone it just perpetuates ill conceived ideas because people dont have the courage to openly discuss issues because they are too busy trying to look like smitten fanboys.

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 04:41 PM.


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