AU midi Feature Requests

edited November 11 in Feature Requests

User records pre 1 note per bar.
Loads AU midi arp
Create post track that receives the AU midi arp

Updated my original FR and added

  • render midi take for n bars (and change midi channel if needed)
    with option to automatically add/replace to the timeline’s current position or scene would be much smoother for the devs and users would be happy :)

I am talking about post render (the output of the midi fx)

Tagged:
«1

Comments

  • edited November 10

    Totally agree those requests

  • Just had a few hours to work with and adjust to the new changes in BM3. I'll share my thoughts on the current AU MIDI implementation (which I posted on the Audiobus forum just now) as they are relevant to the current topic.

    There may be additional issues that I've not run into yet, but my impression of the changes has been very positive.

    Specifically with regard to the MIDI AU implementation, I completely get why people are wound up over the changes, but honestly it felt much better designed and more creative in the current implementation. It works like a MIDI EFFECT (MIDI in, different MIDI out), which is totally logical and intuitive. For example, all Rozeta generators can really be thought of as MIDI effects -- they take in MIDI which specifies things like key, active pattern etc. and output pattern data. So, my scenes/timeline in BM3 was simply what instructions the Rozeta instances needed to generate the performance. Playback is perfect! After that, it's really easy to print the audio output onto an audio track (which worked perfectly with almost no setup). It's a great workflow and you can even see on the pads screen, what notes the Rozeta modules are outputting, which is really cool! We've heard word from the source that it'll be possible in the future to print directly to MIDI which actually doesn't really make sense to me unless it was printing to a separate MIDI lane that bypasses the MIDI AU -- otherwise the MIDI AU's track itself will play back incorrectly after it has been printed into the lane containing it's control information.

    While I did have some stability issues and problems with re-loading a session, I have absolutely zero issues with the design decisions taken by the BM3 team!

  • @OscarSouth I used the 2 key words :)

    1. option
    2. Pre/post
  • And storage 😉

  • @korakios said:
    @OscarSouth I used the 2 key words :)

    1. option
    2. Pre/post

    Yeah, when I was thinking about it, I assumed that a setup with pre/post lanes would be the simplest solution. It's not too bad to print the track to audio currently, but it'd definitely be cool to be able to print to MIDI in a logical way.

  • The ability to “print to midi” is important so that it can be edited / enhanced if needed. Standard workflow for me would be to record the midi, then disable the midi FX until I want to work on another section.

  • @number37 said:
    The ability to “print to midi” is important so that it can be edited / enhanced if needed. Standard workflow for me would be to record the midi, then disable the midi FX until I want to work on another section.

    You've got a feedback loop of processing going there, where when engaged, the MIDI effects will be receiving the previous prints of the MIDI effects. With this in mind, pre/post MIDI lanes are definitely a good idea.

    Your workflow works fine with committing to audio however, and I'd actually recommend that approach wherever possible.

    It's kind of a strange problem really, that mainly causes workflow issues on iOS because of peoples unusual love of random note generators here. Other than wanting to edit randomly generated output, I think committing to audio is always preferential.

  • edited November 10

    @OscarSouth said:
    Your workflow works fine with committing to audio however, and I'd actually recommend that approach wherever possible.

    You missed my point. Sure, committing to audio captures the output from an app, driven by a midi AU plugin. But in many cases I want the midi AU output as the basis for a pattern, but want to add to / delete / tweak, etc. notes from that output. So, I need to capture it in order to be able to edit it. Then commit to audio. For me, midi AU output is more often a starting point, to save time, than a final product.

  • @OscarSouth strange, but I couldn´t see your AB post on the first page(s) when you mentioned it here. Had to click on your user and view your recent comments to see it. I responded in that thread, but noticed that it still didn´t surface to the front page. Strange indeed. So if you´re wondering why it doesn´t generate any replies, perhaps no one has seen it.

  • Anyway, here was my reply in that thread:

    I mostly hear you, but not all (midi in, different midi out) effects are as intuitive. I´m looking at you, Rozeta LFO. It outputs midi cc curves, so intuitively it shouldn´t do anything with midi note messages, don´t you agree? In the current 3.0.11, if you add LFO as an effect then midi events for that pad are not passed through Rozeta LFO, and the output becomes silence. Is this a BM3 bug, or perhaps a Rozeta LFO bug given this interpretation of what midi effects should do? What say you, @brambos?

    On another note, in order to get Rozetas hosted in AUM to play different banks in BM3, I now had to, for each bank, select Midi in port as the un-intuitive ALL. Is that new, or has it always been like this? I can´t remember having done that before. The other parts I do remember (set each bank to separate channels corresponding to the Rozeta channels, and turn off in BM3 settings the Omni mode where the focus bank receives all midi).

  • edited November 11

    I pretty much disagree with everything in this thread, just my opinion obviously.
    Previous implementation
    Recorded midi to its own pad lane.
    Recorded audio to its own track.
    With a couple of tweaks, completely modular, which it needs to be to support MIDI out from AU effects and AU synths.

    Current implementation.
    Whole big list of feature requests that were already possible (see this thread)

    Beatmaker uses a bank/paradigm for as many things as possible, why now start to try and make it linear like Cubasis ?

    Like i say, just my opinion though.

  • I agree with that, I miss the old way. One of my biggest wishes for the last BM3 update was to be able to set up lots of creative Rozeta banks.

    I hear the developers say it was needed for reduced latency, which perhaps is a valid point if a super tight sampler is the main focus. On the other hand, AUM handles flexible routing from any AU to any AU just fine, and that developer is not known for taking shortcuts which compromise quality. So I dunno.

  • edited November 11

    @5pinlink said:
    ........Current implementation.
    Whole big list of feature requests that were already possible (see this thread)

    Which thread ? Which features ?

    Edit : I get it now (my English doesn’t help!)

  • edited November 11

    I agree. I liked it the way it was. Though it would actually be nice to have both options. For instance, with an AU midi FX like Midi Echo, which adds to midi passing through it, it seems intuitive to place it in an FX position.

    I’m not a developer, but logically, it makes sense to me that if it’s possible in AUM to deal with both routing and latency, and have it work reliably, then it should be possible for Intua to do so as well. Now ... whether or not that’s practical given their resources and the pressure for a solution quickly, is another matter.

    But ... water under the bridge. The RouteMidi app provides a workable solution for my purposes at the present. But, I do hope for Intua’s sake and reputation that they improve over what they have now.

  • @bleep said:
    Anyway, here was my reply in that thread:

    I mostly hear you, but not all (midi in, different midi out) effects are as intuitive. I´m looking at you, Rozeta LFO. It outputs midi cc curves, so intuitively it shouldn´t do anything with midi note messages, don´t you agree? In the current 3.0.11, if you add LFO as an effect then midi events for that pad are not passed through Rozeta LFO, and the output becomes silence. Is this a BM3 bug, or perhaps a Rozeta LFO bug given this interpretation of what midi effects should do? What say you, @brambos?

    On another note, in order to get Rozetas hosted in AUM to play different banks in BM3, I now had to, for each bank, select Midi in port as the un-intuitive ALL. Is that new, or has it always been like this? I can´t remember having done that before. The other parts I do remember (set each bank to separate channels corresponding to the Rozeta channels, and turn off in BM3 settings the Omni mode where the focus bank receives all midi).

    Interesting examples raised. My first intuition is that MIDI effects like Rozeta LFO could do with a 'MIDI-Thru' option, so that a performance can pass through enriched with extra data (in this case an LFO as a CC). That fits very neatly as a mental model for this specific use case, to me personally. I also don't think that Rozeta LFO has any addition MIDI in requirement (other than 'manual run' mode, which would work fine with MIDI Thru). @brambos maybe you have some insight on this yourself?

  • @bleep said:
    @OscarSouth strange, but I couldn´t see your AB post on the first page(s) when you mentioned it here. Had to click on your user and view your recent comments to see it. I responded in that thread, but noticed that it still didn´t surface to the front page. Strange indeed. So if you´re wondering why it doesn´t generate any replies, perhaps no one has seen it.

    I think the thread has been “sunk” by the forum host - meaning that while it hasn’t been closed, it will not jump to the top on new posts. This because of the nosedive into uncivility the discussion had taken.

    Best to start a new topic if you feel like more eyes on the discussion over there would be useful.

  • edited November 11

    @OscarSouth said:
    Interesting examples raised. My first intuition is that MIDI effects like Rozeta LFO could do with a 'MIDI-Thru' option, so that a performance can pass through enriched with extra data (in this case an LFO as a CC). That fits very neatly as a mental model for this specific use case, to me personally. I also don't think that Rozeta LFO has any addition MIDI in requirement (other than 'manual run' mode, which would work fine with MIDI Thru). @brambos maybe you have some insight on this yourself?

    Humm ... interesting, but I don’t get it. When would you ever want to pass data through Rozeta LFO? It generates LFOs, to produce CC values, to stream to controls on other apps. Are you saying that it would possibly take a cc stream coming into it, then have its LFO alter that cc stream? That’s not at all what it does, so I don’t really see the application. (Not challeninging you - just wondering if I get what you’re saying or not.)

    Put another way: Rozeta LFO is a generator, not an effect. It generates something (a stream of cc values), it doesn’t affect something passed to it (which is how I think of an effect).

  • @number37 said:

    @OscarSouth said:
    Interesting examples raised. My first intuition is that MIDI effects like Rozeta LFO could do with a 'MIDI-Thru' option, so that a performance can pass through enriched with extra data (in this case an LFO as a CC). That fits very neatly as a mental model for this specific use case, to me personally. I also don't think that Rozeta LFO has any addition MIDI in requirement (other than 'manual run' mode, which would work fine with MIDI Thru). @brambos maybe you have some insight on this yourself?

    Humm ... interesting, but I don’t get it. When would you ever want to pass data through Rozeta LFO? It generates LFOs, to produce CC values, to stream to controls on other apps. Are you saying that it would possibly take a cc stream coming into it, then have its LFO alter that cc stream? That’s not at all what it does, so I don’t really see the application. (Not challeninging you - just wondering if I get what you’re saying or not.)

    Put another way: Rozeta LFO is a generator, not an effect. It generates something (a stream of cc values), it doesn’t affect something passed to it (which is how I think of an effect).

    If it's sitting in the effect slot, then in that case it's an effect (even if in another context it is purely a generator). It could take in a MIDI performance and emit the same performance with LFO CC output added on top. MIDI in, different MIDI out. Seems like a pretty simple mental model and an intuitive way to implement it as a MIDI effect to me.

  • Similarly, I don’t really understand how something like Rozeta Bassline is an effect either. Sure, it accepts midi to control it, but in what use case would you want to pass that through? It takes midi input to alter the base note of the sequence (as an offset from C4). But that’s relative. The sequence could be in E minor pentatonic, but if you send a D4 to it, it’ll shift the sequence up two semitones. I don’t see what use passing that D4 through would normally be. Likewise, it changes patterns based on C1, D1, E1, etc., but why would you want to pass those notes along to another app?

    Some midi FX like FAC Envolver listen to audio passing through them and generate CC’s based on that audio. Some midi FX like Midi Echo make sense to pass data through them. These I get as FX. The others are generators to me.

  • @OscarSouth said:

    @number37 said:

    @OscarSouth said:
    Interesting examples raised. My first intuition is that MIDI effects like Rozeta LFO could do with a 'MIDI-Thru' option, so that a performance can pass through enriched with extra data (in this case an LFO as a CC). That fits very neatly as a mental model for this specific use case, to me personally. I also don't think that Rozeta LFO has any addition MIDI in requirement (other than 'manual run' mode, which would work fine with MIDI Thru). @brambos maybe you have some insight on this yourself?

    Humm ... interesting, but I don’t get it. When would you ever want to pass data through Rozeta LFO? It generates LFOs, to produce CC values, to stream to controls on other apps. Are you saying that it would possibly take a cc stream coming into it, then have its LFO alter that cc stream? That’s not at all what it does, so I don’t really see the application. (Not challeninging you - just wondering if I get what you’re saying or not.)

    Put another way: Rozeta LFO is a generator, not an effect. It generates something (a stream of cc values), it doesn’t affect something passed to it (which is how I think of an effect).

    If it's sitting in the effect slot, then in that case it's an effect (even if in another context it is purely a generator). It could take in a MIDI performance and emit the same performance with LFO CC output added on top. MIDI in, different MIDI out. Seems like a pretty simple mental model and an intuitive way to implement it as a MIDI effect to me.

    OK, I guess I get that. Still, I see things like Rozeta LFO more as generators than effects. There are four LFOs in Rozeta LFO. Maybe I want to send those all to different apps, or multiple apps each, or any combination. That blurs the line over whether it’s an effect or generator.

    Which is why I would like to have it both ways. ;)

  • @number37 said:
    Similarly, I don’t really understand how something like Rozeta Bassline is an effect either. Sure, it accepts midi to control it, but in what use case would you want to pass that through? It takes midi input to alter the base note of the sequence (as an offset from C4). But that’s relative. The sequence could be in E minor pentatonic, but if you send a D4 to it, it’ll shift the sequence up two semitones. I don’t see what use passing that D4 through would normally be. Likewise, it changes patterns based on C1, D1, E1, etc., but why would you want to pass those notes along to another app?

    Some midi FX like FAC Envolver listen to audio passing through them and generate CC’s based on that audio. Some midi FX like Midi Echo make sense to pass data through them. These I get as FX. The others are generators to me.

    This is absolutely the best thing about the new setup for me. It's sooooo easy to construct tracks by building up variations in the Rozeta sequence modules and then automating them throughout the composition by building up patterns representing the different changes required through the piece then copying the appropriate sections to the timeline (or scene, in scenes mode).

    This is a fantastic implementation of a MIDI effect which goes out of the box and does something wonderfully creative. Its still MIDI in, different MIDI out, it just does something much deeper in the middle!

  • edited November 11

    @number37 said:

    @OscarSouth said:

    @number37 said:

    @OscarSouth said:
    Interesting examples raised. My first intuition is that MIDI effects like Rozeta LFO could do with a 'MIDI-Thru' option, so that a performance can pass through enriched with extra data (in this case an LFO as a CC). That fits very neatly as a mental model for this specific use case, to me personally. I also don't think that Rozeta LFO has any addition MIDI in requirement (other than 'manual run' mode, which would work fine with MIDI Thru). @brambos maybe you have some insight on this yourself?

    Humm ... interesting, but I don’t get it. When would you ever want to pass data through Rozeta LFO? It generates LFOs, to produce CC values, to stream to controls on other apps. Are you saying that it would possibly take a cc stream coming into it, then have its LFO alter that cc stream? That’s not at all what it does, so I don’t really see the application. (Not challeninging you - just wondering if I get what you’re saying or not.)

    Put another way: Rozeta LFO is a generator, not an effect. It generates something (a stream of cc values), it doesn’t affect something passed to it (which is how I think of an effect).

    If it's sitting in the effect slot, then in that case it's an effect (even if in another context it is purely a generator). It could take in a MIDI performance and emit the same performance with LFO CC output added on top. MIDI in, different MIDI out. Seems like a pretty simple mental model and an intuitive way to implement it as a MIDI effect to me.

    OK, I guess I get that. Still, I see things like Rozeta LFO more as generators than effects. There are four LFOs in Rozeta LFO. Maybe I want to send those all to different apps, or multiple apps each, or any combination. That blurs the line over whether it’s an effect or generator.

    Which is why I would like to have it both ways. ;)

    I do totally get the pain of moving away from the 'old' model and slightly lament some of the lost functionality, but I do also like the new system personally. I find that it has a better creative flow to it and if it's helped minimise latency and solve some other problems along the way, then all the better.

    Anyway, I can do anything I want when I combine BM3 with other apps -- I'm happy to go through those few extra steps to get what I want on the rare occasion that I want to do something more complex. Most of the time, I value the well designed and quick workflow that's currently provided.

    I still love the midiLFOs app by the way -- it's a standalone and deeper than Rozeta LFO in some ways. Rozeta hits the mark 95% of the time, but midiLFOs takes me the extra mile on the occasion that I need it. I'd recommend that as a stand alone for multi-routing of multiple LFOs.

  • I think asking or expecting MIDI AU developers to change or update their plugins for a changed implementation is a bit much to be honest, either just do a linear approach like Cubasis, which is what we have now, or support all MIDI output AU by supporting routing, like AUM.

    B3 was a couple of steps from being a fully fledged modular environment per bank in the previous iteration, but maybe the developer wants simple features, not powerful modular features, i am certainly not the entire userbase, but the most vocal seem to want modularity, but again that does not mean there are ten times as many users that want simple and say nothing.

    I will be completely honest now though, if the sampler gets the dumbing down treatment like the MIDI AU support has, i personally will just move on to other software, i like the current and previous power.

  • edited November 11

    The perfection and depth of the sampler is why I'm fine with a streamlined MIDI effect implementation.

    I don't think the discussion about Rozeta LFO is exactly making big demands of any developer -- LFOs is the single example from a large suite of MIDI effects that doesn't quite fit the currently implementation. The rest are perfect and in my opinion are exceptional examples of the kind of app that fits into the current design, whether by design or circumstance!

  • And the design completely removes the ability to use Perforators MIDI out by the same developer, this is a point that is being missed here, there are MIDI AU that are effects and synths, they will not work without MIDI AU routing, so they will never work with the MIDI effects chain, as the developer said, they are incapable of doing MIDI routing with low latency, actually i believe they said it was impossible, but we have to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume a language glitch, they just meant it would be impossible in B3.

  • Or just impossible (impractical) at this time due to the time investment needed. Could be read many ways.

  • edited November 11

    @5pinlink said:
    And the design completely removes the ability to use Perforators MIDI out by the same developer, this is a point that is being missed here, there are MIDI AU that are effects and synths, they will not work without MIDI AU routing, so they will never work with the MIDI effects chain, as the developer said, they are incapable of doing MIDI routing with low latency, ...

    Damn! Didn’t get around to trying that yet. You’re right! :'(
    B3 is officially back on the shelf for me for now. Shoot.

  • Just had a play around. Not as flexible as it could be perhaps but BM3 sends MIDI fine from a pad into AUM, which can function as a host with as many MIDI effects and generators as you want while returning the audio you want back into BM3's pad. I had Perforator running inside AUM in sync with BM3 and it's MIDI being routed into the instrument which was being played from and returned to BM3's pad.

  • edited November 11

    Workaround example ( app creating virtual midi ports (Midiflow/midifire etc) is used )
    VMP=Virtual Midi Port
    I created one in and one out midi port
    VMPin
    VMPout
    Used MidiFlow and routed in to out .
    Enabled both in BM3
    Bank A ,midi in from VMPout,Channel 1, Single mode midi out/channel disabled .
    Pad 1 on key mode .
    Loaded Rozeta Arp
    Bank B , midi out to VMPin , Channel 1 , Single mode midi in/channel disabled .
    Now Bank B (load a sample on pad 1 and turn the volume down) controls the app on BankA .
    Those stuff reminds me of hardware gear I had and was wasting time in workarounds.
    Sold them all....
    Now going to sleep

  • @number37 said:

    @5pinlink said:
    And the design completely removes the ability to use Perforators MIDI out by the same developer, this is a point that is being missed here, there are MIDI AU that are effects and synths, they will not work without MIDI AU routing, so they will never work with the MIDI effects chain, as the developer said, they are incapable of doing MIDI routing with low latency, ...

    Damn! Didn’t get around to trying that yet. You’re right! :'(
    B3 is officially back on the shelf for me for now. Shoot.

    Edit - wait a minute ... perforator isn’t a midi FX. It works fine. Could you please clarify what you meant @5pinlink?

Sign In or Register to comment.