Was nothing personal @5pinlink just a friendly 'with BM3 the glass is almost definitely half full...not half empty' kind of nudge looking back we clearly should have switched to PMs tho... Don't bail the forum
Back on topic.. Tbh I'm pretty confused over what's the best solution.... It gets so complicated when you try to forsee all the workflow/creative implications and pros/cons of the different options.. Hopefully @mathieugarcia can pick the bones out of all the angles and make sense of it...
@Heyez BM3 beta testing is loaded with people wanting a software pattern based groovebox like Natives Instruments Machine. On the other hand there are a lot of people who have been using BM2 as their linear DAW for 4 or more years who are quite disappointed with instruments no longer being on the main timeline and AU/IAA/AB instruments in addition to the top keyboard style sampler on iOS being buried in the drum pad interface. I know things are in flux but want to give them a heads up. Other companies make you sign a nondisclosure agreement but INTUA does not. They've been pretty chill about letting other beta testers talk openly about upcoming features.
Cheers
@philowerx yeah wasn't having a dig at you Just seemed a bit 'grey area' after @mathieugarcia had posted the other day about the update but left it vague with something along lines of 'well, you'll see'. Just seemed odd after that for the first info on big additions to come from someone on the beta, Just haven't seen that happen before with other companies wasn't really my place to say tho...
Yeah, pretty complicated situation re what intua decide to do. Sure they'll nail it after a few updates tho
It is better than 8 banks but you still can't independently move banks up and down the timeline or delete a specific banks without a shift. They're locked in place and if you delete say G1, A2 is changes to the new G1.
We need independent MIDI tracks not tied to any given bank, it is all well and good having 128 banks, but i could easily make most of my music with just one bank and independent MIDI tracks, lets not forget that 1 bank alone could hold 128 samplers or 128 AU synths.
I really don't see what the issue is with them doing this, the app is getting a lot of bad comments right now, give people a simple way in to using the app.
@5pinlink I'm not being facetious or argumentative, but what's the problem/difference between using a BM3 Bank as an 'independent midi track' compared to using a bm2 style midi track like you're requesting? I genuinely can't see the benefit of a traditional midi track over a BM3 Bank used as a midi track. Midi isn't something I know too much about tho so I could easily be missing something + i haven't tried to use BM3 with anything except for by itself + controller.
So I'm not trying to argue and I'm genuinely curious. I thought 128 tracks would probably be the end of people being bummed on Banks vs tracks, and intua could leave it behind and focus on refining banks functionality, but seems maybe more banks doesn't solve problems for some people?
If i want instrument 32, I go to bank 1, I click up arrow to page 2 and select pad 32.
If i want instrument 32, I go to banks, I click 4 times on the arrow,
(Not withstanding the lost touch bug, so that it actually takes me 4 times to get it to move one step, so currently press it 16 times) then i click to select bank 32, then i click to select the first pad.
Which seems like an easier workflow ?
That is just a simple UI/X issue, there is also the issues of dealing with hardwired tracks in the arranger, but i am not getting in to that here and derailing the thread.
I dunno man, the way I see it is that most daws don't even have an integrated pads/bank page or that kind of depth/facility in relation to tracks. They just have the timeline view and regular audio/midi tracks. And BM3 is no different from those other daws in timeline view, just scroll down to track/bank 32 and select it like you'd select a midi/instrument track in any other daw if you have your midi instrument on pad 1 you're good to go unless I'm missing something (very possibly ?
Even if they added regular midi tracks you'd often still have to navigate past other banks to get to the midi track you want if you're in pads view? Or maybe I'm missing something in the implementation you're proposing or the current problem? Not sure I fully understand the first half of your post
It's a kind of a mind thing for me. Say I have a synth I know I can go crazy with that instrument and not worry does it effect another pad. I can do the same thing with pads but I know I got lots of pads and I keep adding into that bank. Instrument track for me is one and done instance throw a synth in there and move on. Nothing wrong with banks idea. I like it for drums and one shots.
@stormywaterz I get what you're saying but I don't really see the problem tbh just load synth on pad 1, name the bank whatever you want for that synth track and ignore the other pads in the bank? Boom..... Instrument track And it's cool to have the other bank pads potentially there for later if you decide you want to layer via 'pad link' etc at a later stage...
@Heyez is there a slight possibility that other users could need something you don't, and there is no need whatsoever for you to get involved in any of these conversations because as you have pointed out, it works perfect for you and you don't see the problem ?
Not wanting to argue (If you do, please take it to PM) but you seem to just be saying "It is working fine, shut up" and you know, some times, some things that work for you, wont work for others.
@stormywaterz Yeh, I get what you're saying I only posted in response to yours cos it sounded like it was bugging you so I was just saying forget about the other pads and you're set
@5pinlink cheap and unnecessary move dude. Are you like this in real life?
I was genuinely asking what the benefit of 'instrument tracks' would be now that there are 128 midi tracks. I didn't see anything in your explanation that legitimised the request and said maybe I'm not understanding. At which point a normal person would have continued the discussion and explained further. But you throw the following sarcastic comment at me? Wtf?
"is there a slight possibility that other users could need something you don't, and there is no need whatsoever for you to get involved in any of these conversations because as you have pointed out, it works perfect for you and you don't see the problem ?"
@Heyez why are you so confrontational all the time, please take it to PM, there was no cheap move, i pointed out that you said it was ok for you, so why worry about others request by constantly telling them there is no problem, there is no problem for YOU, and now you are continuing with personal insults by calling me a non normal person, please take this to PM, you are derailing the thread, which is zero interest to you because it works for you.
I agree with @5pinlink on the option for individual tracks. Its like having drum racks only in ableton. I like having the individual timeline for linear workflows. I don't have to remember what pad or bank or whatever when I'm trying to find it. if I have 8 different synth parts, it get's difficult to find and manage it. If i just have individual tracks for items that are really just individual tracks, its much cleaner.
It doesn't have to be one way, I think there is room for both solutions.
@5pinlink did it ever cross your mind that I might be taking part in the conversation and asking you to explain in order to fully understand the problem so I could actually try to help to make it LESS of a problem or show you a different point of view that might help you out?
Just cos I don't personally require midi channels I'm still interested in the development of BM3 and have as much right as anyone else on the forum to chime in on any BM3 subject, whether I agree with the direction of the conversation/the feature request or not. It's just opinions.... The more the merrier.
There were a ton of people saying they disagreed with the dude that requested to lose autosave. Does that make them confrontational? Or is it only when people disagree with YOUR opinion that it's an issue... Jeez. Either way, I'm through trying to help you out man...
Edit - and kind of hilarious that you keep replying IN THE THREAD telling me to take it to PM so it doesn't get derailed... Lol. So transparent...
No it makes you confrontational when every point that is made is met with "I don't see the problem" if you don't see the problem then it is working fine for you, then following this up with personal insults is just childish, i wish there was an ignore on this forum, but there isn't, if you wish to carry on, do so in PM, you are ruining a thread.
@drez said:
I agree with @5pinlink on the option for individual tracks. Its like having drum racks only in ableton. I like having the individual timeline for linear workflows. I don't have to remember what pad or bank or whatever when I'm trying to find it. if I have 8 different synth parts, it get's difficult to find and manage it. If i just have individual tracks for items that are really just individual tracks, its much cleaner.
It doesn't have to be one way, I think there is room for both solutions.
Heres the thing, if MIDI tracks are implemented, how does that bother anybody who is happy with just using lots of extra banks ?
It doesn't, so there is really zero argument against this whatsoever, it adds an extra layer of usability for a lot of people, and removes non whatsoever for others.
Cos it's potentially wasted dev time and there are a TON of other things that would be huge additions/fixes. Obvs... Hence why I asked explain to me why it's important. But forget it..
@drez I get the psychological part of it, the wasted pads can kind of nag/feel unnecessary etc, but I'm struggling to see how if people just use pad 1 in separate banks for separate instruments, there's almost zero workflow/function benefit from the effort of intua adding dedicated instrument tracks? At least as far as I can see. Just seems like a lot of hassle for functionality that already exists? I'm not saying I'm right. Trying to see it from yours and that other guy's side but still not really feeling like there's an issue/benefit. Hence me repeatedly saying I must be missing something... Guess just one of those things.
Your "TON of other things" is no more important than a feature request that quite a few users would like, so i see nothing obvious about why anybody should explain something to you (No sarcasm or cheap moves or whatever else you think) you being somebody who already finds the system in place to be perfect.
Back OT
In terms of organisation it would be a real boon too, create a bank, rename the bank instruments, load your AUs and samplers in that, then whenever you go to banks you click on instruments and every instrument you are using is all there on one set of pads for selecting and editing, 16 instruments is a hell of a lot, 128 is a huge amount even on the desktop.
Having 128 banks for layering kits and such is amazing, but having the ability to load one bank up with all you chromatic instruments would just take this right over the edge.
It is also great for using huge bank sets and saving on resources, say you create a bank with 128 instruments in the sampler, now if you want to use two of those instruments at the same time, you need to load the bank twice, however if you have MIDI tracks you load the bank once and create two MIDI tracks, not only is this tidier but it will also save on some resources.
@5pinlink These are the kind of potential benefits I was curious to hear about and imagined you'd reply with earlier before you went off topic and cheap shot...
'but having the ability to load one bank up with all you chromatic instruments would just take this right over the edge'...
I already made a bank with 128 instruments in it? How would this be any better/more flexible with the inclusion of midi tracks (genuine question...)? Would it not be more beneficial to the overall app to just make Banks more flexible in terms of their midi routing per pad etc? Like just entirely nailing the banks functionality instead of bringing in other tracks to do those jobs that banks 'could' do? Rather than spending dev time on adding midi tracks but then probably still eventually also spending dev time on refining banks to have similar functionality as well? Again, genuine question. Maybe im missing something that really makes midi tracks a neccessity that can't be ironed out in banks.
"It is also great for using huge bank sets and saving on resources, say you create a bank with 128 instruments in the sampler, now if you want to use two of those instruments at the same time, you need to load the bank twice, however if you have MIDI tracks you load the bank once and create two MIDI tracks, not only is this tidier but it will also save on some resources".
Wouldn't best way to save resources be to just copy those two pads/instruments to 2 separate new banks and delete the '128 instruments bank'?
To be honest in the end I hope that standard midi tracks are added as well. Can't hurt to have them as an option. My interest was just in what makes it important/pressing since the addition of 128 bank tracks...
Like I said a million times, I'm just curious. My apologies that that spins you out....
unless i've got the wrong end of the stick, which happens fairly regularly, then the benefit is self evident when you open a DAW. it all represented there on one page.
as far a one instrument per bank is concerned, i'd personally prefer to stay in one bank and if needs arise, then move to another one. saves extra the navigation. i spent most of last night trying to copy a instrument (or is that a bank with a bank?) and its midi from bank b to bank a so i could play on the pads, doing my thing of un/muting patterns. in the end i took a photo on my phone of the midi notes cos couldn't figure it out. LOL
but the real downside was after i'd played around in BM3 i thought i'd have a go on my electribe. the electribe sounded really poor in comparison. oh, well.
poles pretty clear at the beginning of the thread. but i think that it's ultimately up to intua on how they want it to be. it's their creative endeavour.
@Heyez said: @drez I get the psychological part of it, the wasted pads can kind of nag/feel unnecessary etc, but I'm struggling to see how if people just use pad 1 in separate banks for separate instruments, there's almost zero workflow/function benefit from the effort of intua adding dedicated instrument tracks? At least as far as I can see. Just seems like a lot of hassle for functionality that already exists? I'm not saying I'm right. Trying to see it from yours and that other guy's side but still not really feeling like there's an issue/benefit. Hence me repeatedly saying I must be missing something... Guess just one of those things.
The single pad in a bank as a workaround is a lot of overhead. I now require all the clicks of moving through a bank system when I just want a midi track. Can I do that? Well, sure I can. That doesn't mean I want to. I end up having to dive through hoops that are unnecessary. To get to a AU/IAA/Audiobus plugin every single time on a single pad when that's the only thing going on in the whole bank takes a ton of taps. That's what I do the majority of the time I'm writing melodies, i'm not in the sampler. Even if I AM only in the sampler, the single pane of glass editing you could do with just MIDI in view instead of all the pads would be a smooth editing workflow.
My Dad always said If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. What we have with Pads for all linear based MIDI tracks is using a hammer when its not required and is not elegant. A simpler workflow for a process I am in easily 50%+ of the time would speed me up tremendously.
You can either get what I'm saying or not, that's cool, but it doesn't feel like it needs to be explained further to grasp the concept. I think @5pinlink has explained it enough. I totally understand exactly what he is saying. I don't think he can explain it much differently to get his point across. And I am totally on board with it.
@drez yeah, i get it But all I'm saying is wouldn't having your plugin on pad 1 and intua just adding a 'keys' icon to the left column, fix your 'too many taps' workflow issues and benefit the entire BM3 workflow instead of potentially complicating it with new bugs and whatever? You'd never have to see the pads... But yeah, I'm not trying to talk anyone out of anything, if they need it they need it. I'd probably use instrument tracks at some point as well if they add them.
Comments
Was nothing personal @5pinlink just a friendly 'with BM3 the glass is almost definitely half full...not half empty' kind of nudge
Back on topic.. Tbh I'm pretty confused over what's the best solution.... It gets so complicated when you try to forsee all the workflow/creative implications and pros/cons of the different options.. Hopefully @mathieugarcia can pick the bones out of all the angles and make sense of it...
Cheers
Yeah, pretty complicated situation re what intua decide to do. Sure they'll nail it after a few updates tho
Thanks for the 128 Banks! That mostly solves the issue of this thread. I can live with it
.
It is better than 8 banks but you still can't independently move banks up and down the timeline or delete a specific banks without a shift. They're locked in place and if you delete say G1, A2 is changes to the new G1.
We need independent MIDI tracks not tied to any given bank, it is all well and good having 128 banks, but i could easily make most of my music with just one bank and independent MIDI tracks, lets not forget that 1 bank alone could hold 128 samplers or 128 AU synths.
I really don't see what the issue is with them doing this, the app is getting a lot of bad comments right now, give people a simple way in to using the app.
So I'm not trying to argue and I'm genuinely curious. I thought 128 tracks would probably be the end of people being bummed on Banks vs tracks, and intua could leave it behind and focus on refining banks functionality, but seems maybe more banks doesn't solve problems for some people?
If i want instrument 32, I go to bank 1, I click up arrow to page 2 and select pad 32.
If i want instrument 32, I go to banks, I click 4 times on the arrow,
(Not withstanding the lost touch bug, so that it actually takes me 4 times to get it to move one step, so currently press it 16 times) then i click to select bank 32, then i click to select the first pad.
Which seems like an easier workflow ?
That is just a simple UI/X issue, there is also the issues of dealing with hardwired tracks in the arranger, but i am not getting in to that here and derailing the thread.
I dunno man, the way I see it is that most daws don't even have an integrated pads/bank page or that kind of depth/facility in relation to tracks. They just have the timeline view and regular audio/midi tracks. And BM3 is no different from those other daws in timeline view, just scroll down to track/bank 32 and select it like you'd select a midi/instrument track in any other daw
Even if they added regular midi tracks you'd often still have to navigate past other banks to get to the midi track you want if you're in pads view? Or maybe I'm missing something in the implementation you're proposing or the current problem? Not sure I fully understand the first half of your post
@Heyez is there a slight possibility that other users could need something you don't, and there is no need whatsoever for you to get involved in any of these conversations because as you have pointed out, it works perfect for you and you don't see the problem ?
Not wanting to argue (If you do, please take it to PM) but you seem to just be saying "It is working fine, shut up" and you know, some times, some things that work for you, wont work for others.
I was genuinely asking what the benefit of 'instrument tracks' would be now that there are 128 midi tracks. I didn't see anything in your explanation that legitimised the request and said maybe I'm not understanding. At which point a normal person would have continued the discussion and explained further. But you throw the following sarcastic comment at me? Wtf?
"is there a slight possibility that other users could need something you don't, and there is no need whatsoever for you to get involved in any of these conversations because as you have pointed out, it works perfect for you and you don't see the problem ?"
@Heyez why are you so confrontational all the time, please take it to PM, there was no cheap move, i pointed out that you said it was ok for you, so why worry about others request by constantly telling them there is no problem, there is no problem for YOU, and now you are continuing with personal insults by calling me a non normal person, please take this to PM, you are derailing the thread, which is zero interest to you because it works for you.
I agree with @5pinlink on the option for individual tracks. Its like having drum racks only in ableton. I like having the individual timeline for linear workflows. I don't have to remember what pad or bank or whatever when I'm trying to find it. if I have 8 different synth parts, it get's difficult to find and manage it. If i just have individual tracks for items that are really just individual tracks, its much cleaner.
It doesn't have to be
one way, I think there is room for both solutions.Just cos I don't personally require midi channels I'm still interested in the development of BM3 and have as much right as anyone else on the forum to chime in on any BM3 subject, whether I agree with the direction of the conversation/the feature request or not. It's just opinions.... The more the merrier.
There were a ton of people saying they disagreed with the dude that requested to lose autosave. Does that make them confrontational? Or is it only when people disagree with YOUR opinion that it's an issue... Jeez. Either way, I'm through trying to help you out man...
Edit - and kind of hilarious that you keep replying IN THE THREAD telling me to take it to PM so it doesn't get derailed... Lol. So transparent...
No it makes you confrontational when every point that is made is met with "I don't see the problem" if you don't see the problem then it is working fine for you, then following this up with personal insults is just childish, i wish there was an ignore on this forum, but there isn't, if you wish to carry on, do so in PM, you are ruining a thread.
Heres the thing, if MIDI tracks are implemented, how does that bother anybody who is happy with just using lots of extra banks ?
It doesn't, so there is really zero argument against this whatsoever, it adds an extra layer of usability for a lot of people, and removes non whatsoever for others.
Your "TON of other things" is no more important than a feature request that quite a few users would like, so i see nothing obvious about why anybody should explain something to you (No sarcasm or cheap moves or whatever else you think) you being somebody who already finds the system in place to be perfect.
Back OT
In terms of organisation it would be a real boon too, create a bank, rename the bank instruments, load your AUs and samplers in that, then whenever you go to banks you click on instruments and every instrument you are using is all there on one set of pads for selecting and editing, 16 instruments is a hell of a lot, 128 is a huge amount even on the desktop.
Having 128 banks for layering kits and such is amazing, but having the ability to load one bank up with all you chromatic instruments would just take this right over the edge.
It is also great for using huge bank sets and saving on resources, say you create a bank with 128 instruments in the sampler, now if you want to use two of those instruments at the same time, you need to load the bank twice, however if you have MIDI tracks you load the bank once and create two MIDI tracks, not only is this tidier but it will also save on some resources.
'but having the ability to load one bank up with all you chromatic instruments would just take this right over the edge'...
I already made a bank with 128 instruments in it? How would this be any better/more flexible with the inclusion of midi tracks (genuine question...)? Would it not be more beneficial to the overall app to just make Banks more flexible in terms of their midi routing per pad etc? Like just entirely nailing the banks functionality instead of bringing in other tracks to do those jobs that banks 'could' do? Rather than spending dev time on adding midi tracks but then probably still eventually also spending dev time on refining banks to have similar functionality as well? Again, genuine question. Maybe im missing something that really makes midi tracks a neccessity that can't be ironed out in banks.
"It is also great for using huge bank sets and saving on resources, say you create a bank with 128 instruments in the sampler, now if you want to use two of those instruments at the same time, you need to load the bank twice, however if you have MIDI tracks you load the bank once and create two MIDI tracks, not only is this tidier but it will also save on some resources".
Wouldn't best way to save resources be to just copy those two pads/instruments to 2 separate new banks and delete the '128 instruments bank'?
To be honest in the end I hope that standard midi tracks are added as well. Can't hurt to have them as an option. My interest was just in what makes it important/pressing since the addition of 128 bank tracks...
Like I said a million times, I'm just curious. My apologies that that spins you out....
unless i've got the wrong end of the stick, which happens fairly regularly, then the benefit is self evident when you open a DAW. it all represented there on one page.
as far a one instrument per bank is concerned, i'd personally prefer to stay in one bank and if needs arise, then move to another one. saves extra the navigation. i spent most of last night trying to copy a instrument (or is that a bank with a bank?) and its midi from bank b to bank a so i could play on the pads, doing my thing of un/muting patterns. in the end i took a photo on my phone of the midi notes cos couldn't figure it out. LOL
but the real downside was after i'd played around in BM3 i thought i'd have a go on my electribe. the electribe sounded really poor in comparison. oh, well.
poles pretty clear at the beginning of the thread. but i think that it's ultimately up to intua on how they want it to be. it's their creative endeavour.
The
single pad in a bankas a workaround is a lot of overhead. I now require all the clicks of moving through a bank system when I just want a midi track.CanI do that? Well, sure I can. That doesn't mean Iwantto. I end up having to dive through hoops that are unnecessary. To get to a AU/IAA/Audiobus plugin every single time on a single pad when that's the only thing going on in the whole bank takes a ton of taps. That's what I do the majority of the time I'm writing melodies, i'm not in the sampler. Even if I AM only in the sampler, the single pane of glass editing you could do with just MIDI in view instead of all the pads would be a smooth editing workflow.My Dad always said If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. What we have with Pads for all linear based MIDI tracks is using a hammer when its not required and is not elegant. A simpler workflow for a process I am in easily 50%+ of the time would speed me up tremendously.
You can either get what I'm saying or not, that's cool, but it doesn't feel like it needs to be explained further to grasp the concept. I think @5pinlink has explained it enough. I totally understand exactly what he is saying. I don't think he can explain it much differently to get his point across. And I am totally on board with it.