| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pppeeeppee
Junior Member
Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Posts: 26
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:47 pm Post subject: VST related: IDEA why not have audio and midi as 1 |
 |
|
First off I would like to say that I am not a cubase user as of yet and intend on using it in the future. Moderators if this subject is in the wrong section please forgive me, as I carefully read the forum index and thought it would be appropriate in this section.
I use sonik synth 2 in most of my production and I use tons and tons of midi channels, but it always puzzled me as to why the developers coded vsts to standard midi protocol. It isn't possible to route audio to a midi channel using hardware, but why isn't it possible to do so using software. The reason why I bring this up is because, I use a ton of midi channels in most of my projects and usually am confused or somewhat frustrated having to independently route each output of my patches to a mixer track. My question is, why did developers code vsts to work and be restricted by midi protocols if software is 10-20 steps further and advance than hardware
Last edited by pppeeeppee on Sat Dec 19, 2009 3:54 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ron Garrison
Senior Member
Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 1003
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:09 pm Post subject: Re: VST related: Would it be possible to route audio to midi |
|
|
| pppeeeppee wrote: | First off I would like to say that I am not a cubase user as of yet and intend on using it in the future. Moderators if this subject is in the wrong section please forgive me, as I carefully read the forum index and thought it would be appropriate in this section.
I use sonik synth 2 in most of my production and I use tons and tons of midi channels, but it always puzzled me as to why the developers coded vsts to standard midi protocol. It isn't possible to route audio to a midi channel using hardware, but why isn't it possible to do so using software. The reason why I bring this up is because, I use a ton of midi channels in most of my projects and usually am confused or somewhat frustrated having to independently route each output of my patches to a mixer track. My question is, why did developers code vsts to work and be restricted by midi protocols if software is 10-20 steps further and advance than hardware |
?????????????????
You do understand what MIDI is don't you? There is no audio data at all in a midi channel and vice versa, so it makes no sense to "route audio to midi". MIDI controls what the VSTi sends out on its audio channels.
Ron
_________________
Quad Core 2.66 GHz (Q6700), Intel DP965LT MB, 8 GB Corsair XMS2 RAM (PC2 6400), 160 GB WD HD (System), 2 x 320GB Seagate HD (audio, samples), GeForce 7300LE, Silverstone ST50EF-Plus PS, Norco D810 RM Chassis, 24" LCD Monitor, Presonus Firepod, Windows 7 x64, C5-32, C5-64, Sonar 8.5 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pppeeeppee
Junior Member
Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:56 pm Post subject: Re: VST related: Would it be possible to route audio to midi |
|
|
| Ron Garrison wrote: | | pppeeeppee wrote: | First off I would like to say that I am not a cubase user as of yet and intend on using it in the future. Moderators if this subject is in the wrong section please forgive me, as I carefully read the forum index and thought it would be appropriate in this section.
I use sonik synth 2 in most of my production and I use tons and tons of midi channels, but it always puzzled me as to why the developers coded vsts to standard midi protocol. It isn't possible to route audio to a midi channel using hardware, but why isn't it possible to do so using software. The reason why I bring this up is because, I use a ton of midi channels in most of my projects and usually am confused or somewhat frustrated having to independently route each output of my patches to a mixer track. My question is, why did developers code vsts to work and be restricted by midi protocols if software is 10-20 steps further and advance than hardware |
?????????????????
You do understand what MIDI is don't you? There is no audio data at all in a midi channel and vice versa, so it makes no sense to "route audio to midi". MIDI controls what the VSTi sends out on its audio channels.
Ron |
Yes in the hardware world its not possible, so why do those same rules apply to software. If software is suppose to do what hardware can't why go back in time and apply those same restrictions. Yes midi is data and audio is something completely different, but why do the same rules still carry over in today's technology. My main point is that it doesn't make sense to apply those same audio and midi rules. It would be cool to route audio to a midi channel, that way it keeps everything nice and neat or better yet automatically sync audio and midi(all in one) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yeti
Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2005
Posts: 477
Location: Zentraleuropa
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
_________________
System: PIV 3Ghz, Asus P5B, 2GB DDR Ram, Radeon X300, 2 Samsung SATA Drives, Audio Steinberg VSL2020, C 5, Reason 4, Halion 3.3, Stylus RMX, 3xUADs, Motu 828MK3, Acer Aspire 1714 NB
Extern: Akai S5000, Proteus 2000, Yamaha A4000, Yamaha SY77 Masterkeyboard, Yamaha QY700, DDX3216, Roland VS1680 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr Mahogany
Senior Member
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 1465
Location: San Francisco Ca
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:45 am Post subject: Re: VST related: Would it be possible to route audio to midi |
|
|
| pppeeeppee wrote: | | Ron Garrison wrote: | | pppeeeppee wrote: | First off I would like to say that I am not a cubase user as of yet and intend on using it in the future. Moderators if this subject is in the wrong section please forgive me, as I carefully read the forum index and thought it would be appropriate in this section.
I use sonik synth 2 in most of my production and I use tons and tons of midi channels, but it always puzzled me as to why the developers coded vsts to standard midi protocol. It isn't possible to route audio to a midi channel using hardware, but why isn't it possible to do so using software. The reason why I bring this up is because, I use a ton of midi channels in most of my projects and usually am confused or somewhat frustrated having to independently route each output of my patches to a mixer track. My question is, why did developers code vsts to work and be restricted by midi protocols if software is 10-20 steps further and advance than hardware |
?????????????????
You do understand what MIDI is don't you? There is no audio data at all in a midi channel and vice versa, so it makes no sense to "route audio to midi". MIDI controls what the VSTi sends out on its audio channels.
Ron |
Yes in the hardware world its not possible, so why do those same rules apply to software. If software is suppose to do what hardware can't why go back in time and apply those same restrictions. Yes midi is data and audio is something completely different, but why do the same rules still carry over in today's technology. My main point is that it doesn't make sense to apply those same audio and midi rules. It would be cool to route audio to a midi channel, that way it keeps everything nice and neat or better yet automatically sync audio and midi(all in one) |
Are you sure you fully understand what Musical Instrument Digital Interface is and what digital audio is??
_________________
Dell Precision 390 2.13 ghz Core Duo / 2gig ECC ram /160g HD /325g sata/500g sata/ Emu 1820M/ XP 64x /CB4 / Komplete 5 / Reason 4 / 13 external synths |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bubba
Senior Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2005
Posts: 1832
Location: Cape Coral, Florida
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are a few programs that convert audio to midi and can do so "on the fly" and can be used to control a VSTi. It is mostly used with drum tracks so one can use the beat, but change the drumset being used. Google can be your friend on this one. The only one that I know of is called "Audio to Midi".
_________________
http://www.jamendo.com/en/album/48239
l |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pppeeeppee
Junior Member
Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:05 pm Post subject: Re: VST related: Would it be possible to route audio to midi |
|
|
| Mr Mahogany wrote: | | pppeeeppee wrote: | | Ron Garrison wrote: | | pppeeeppee wrote: | First off I would like to say that I am not a cubase user as of yet and intend on using it in the future. Moderators if this subject is in the wrong section please forgive me, as I carefully read the forum index and thought it would be appropriate in this section.
I use sonik synth 2 in most of my production and I use tons and tons of midi channels, but it always puzzled me as to why the developers coded vsts to standard midi protocol. It isn't possible to route audio to a midi channel using hardware, but why isn't it possible to do so using software. The reason why I bring this up is because, I use a ton of midi channels in most of my projects and usually am confused or somewhat frustrated having to independently route each output of my patches to a mixer track. My question is, why did developers code vsts to work and be restricted by midi protocols if software is 10-20 steps further and advance than hardware |
?????????????????
You do understand what MIDI is don't you? There is no audio data at all in a midi channel and vice versa, so it makes no sense to "route audio to midi". MIDI controls what the VSTi sends out on its audio channels.
Ron |
Yes in the hardware world its not possible, so why do those same rules apply to software. If software is suppose to do what hardware can't why go back in time and apply those same restrictions. Yes midi is data and audio is something completely different, but why do the same rules still carry over in today's technology. My main point is that it doesn't make sense to apply those same audio and midi rules. It would be cool to route audio to a midi channel, that way it keeps everything nice and neat or better yet automatically sync audio and midi(all in one) |
Are you sure you fully understand what Musical Instrument Digital Interface is and what digital audio is?? |
Yes I understand, but your not understanding what I'm trying to suggest. Yes I know midi = Musical Instrument Digital Interface, and I fully understand what digital audio is. Yes I do understand that midi and audio is 2 completely different things altogether. What I'm trying to explain is that those audio and midi rules came from using hardware. Ever thought about why you couldn't just send audio to a midi channel, instead of just having to re-route everything? Before using software I used a roland 2480 a trition rack and a mpc, in depth you couldn't virtually send audio through a midi cable because midi was program to deal with data and not audio. Now that we are using software why do those same rules still apply? If software is suppose to be advanced and do what hardware can't, why still apply the same rules It doesn't make any sense. Why couldn't vsts be re-programmed to allow midi channels to receive audio as well as midi(all in one) so that when I send a patch to a midi channel the audio is sent as well. Think of this scenario as HD TVs where as on old TVs you use to have to hook up 2-4 wires for sound and pitcure, and now on HD TVs they have one HDMI wire for sound and picture all in one.
Last edited by pppeeeppee on Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kubaez
Senior Member
Joined: 03 Oct 2005
Posts: 1056
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just see MIDI as the keyboard. You (the player, the "code maker") hit a key, and the piano (the VST instrument, the "code reader") produces the sound for that key (or note, if you refer to the written music).
- MIDI is what the Keyboard does (which tone? how loud? how long?)
- Audio is what you hear from the Instrument (be it a Piano or a software emulation).
What you want now (if I'm interpretig right) is: shout (or whisper) at your piano, so it will play the note you want to hear...
This makes no sense, when there is a keyboard with all the notes right in front of you.
However, there are some approaches: There is pitch-to-MIDI, or there are breath controllers, for example. These can be used when there is no keyboard. You can play (or sing) a note, the converter will send the corresponding information to the instrument. That's how a MIDI guitar works, for example.
If that's what you are talking about, have a look at "pitch-to-MIDI" (there are hardware and software converters).
If this is not what you are talking about, maybe you mistake "VST instrument" and "VST effect". VST instruments are controlled by MIDI, VST edffects usually apply to audio.
(As I said: I can only guess. But don't give up now, just go ahead responding, until everything is clear...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RWIL
Senior Member
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 1293
Location: Montreal
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:33 pm Post subject: Re: VST related: Would it be possible to route audio to midi |
|
|
| pppeeeppee wrote: |
Yes I understand, but your not understanding what I'm trying to suggest. Yes I know midi = Musical Instrument Digital Interface, and I fully understand what digital audio is. Yes I do understand that midi and audio is 2 completely different things altogether. What I'm trying to explain is that those audio and midi rules came from using hardware. Ever thought about why you couldn't just send audio to a midi channel, instead of just having to re-route everything? Before using software I used a roland 2480 a trition rack and a mpc, in depth you couldn't virtually send audio through a midi cable because midi was program to deal with data and not audio. Now that we are using software why do those same rules still apply? If software is suppose to be advanced and do what hardware can't, why still apply the same rules It doesn't make any sense. Why couldn't vsts be re-programmed to allow midi channels to receive audio as well as midi(all in one) so that when I send a patch to a midi channel the audio is sent as well. Think of this scenario as HD TVs where as on old TVs you use to have to hook up 2-4 wires for sound and pitcure, and now on HD TVs they have one HDMI for sound and picture all in one. |
Well so far, Instrument track could be your best friend in Cubase!
_________________
RW
Asus P5B Deluxe - Intel C2Duo e6400 2MB - DDR2 4GB - GForce 9400GT, TI FW400 OB-->RME-FF400, 2xPCI UAD-1 & 1xUAD-2 Solo, Line6 GX - 2xLexicon MX200, Win 7 x64 & Win XP Pro SP3, Cubase C4.5.2, Halion 3.3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pppeeeppee
Junior Member
Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:50 pm Post subject: Re: VST related: Would it be possible to route audio to midi |
|
|
| RWIL wrote: | | pppeeeppee wrote: |
Yes I understand, but your not understanding what I'm trying to suggest. Yes I know midi = Musical Instrument Digital Interface, and I fully understand what digital audio is. Yes I do understand that midi and audio is 2 completely different things altogether. What I'm trying to explain is that those audio and midi rules came from using hardware. Ever thought about why you couldn't just send audio to a midi channel, instead of just having to re-route everything? Before using software I used a roland 2480 a trition rack and a mpc, in depth you couldn't virtually send audio through a midi cable because midi was program to deal with data and not audio. Now that we are using software why do those same rules still apply? If software is suppose to be advanced and do what hardware can't, why still apply the same rules It doesn't make any sense. Why couldn't vsts be re-programmed to allow midi channels to receive audio as well as midi(all in one) so that when I send a patch to a midi channel the audio is sent as well. Think of this scenario as HD TVs where as on old TVs you use to have to hook up 2-4 wires for sound and pitcure, and now on HD TVs they have one HDMI for sound and picture all in one. |
Well so far, Instrument track could be your best friend in Cubase! |
I'm glad you understood 
Well I don't use Cubase, funny that you mention that. I actually googled about vsts and was informed that steinerg invented vsts. I was more so suggesting to steinberg to create something more similar to what I was talking about, like a universal AIDI(midi and audio) Audio Instrument Digital Interface or a mudio channel  . Life would be so much easier, when rewiring applications such as reason and cubase. If I can just route everything to one channel I wouldn't have to worry about re-routing the audio to the mixer.
To Kubaez did you read this
| pppeeeppee wrote: | | Yes I understand, but your not understanding what I'm trying to suggest. Yes I know midi = Musical Instrument Digital Interface, and I fully understand what digital audio is. Yes I do understand that midi and audio is 2 completely different things altogether. What I'm trying to explain is that those audio and midi rules came from using hardware. Ever thought about why you couldn't just send audio to a midi channel, instead of just having to re-route everything? Before using software I used a roland 2480 a trition rack and a mpc, in depth you couldn't virtually send audio through a midi cable because midi was program to deal with data and not audio. Now that we are using software why do those same rules still apply? If software is suppose to be advanced and do what hardware can't, why still apply the same rules It doesn't make any sense. Why couldn't vsts be re-programmed to allow midi channels to receive audio as well as midi(all in one) so that when I send a patch to a midi channel the audio is sent as well. Think of this scenario as HD TVs where as on old TVs you use to have to hook up 2-4 wires for sound and pitcure, and now on HD TVs they have one HDMI wire for sound and picture all in one. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kubaez
Senior Member
Joined: 03 Oct 2005
Posts: 1056
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:54 pm Post subject: Re: VST related: Would it be possible to route audio to midi |
|
|
| pppeeeppee wrote: | | To Kubaez did you read this |
Yes I did. I know you can tell MIDI from audio. But I still don't get the advantage of stuffing audio into a MIDI channel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pppeeeppee
Junior Member
Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:10 am Post subject: Re: VST related: Would it be possible to route audio to midi |
|
|
| Kubaez wrote: | | pppeeeppee wrote: | | To Kubaez did you read this |
Yes I did. I know you can tell MIDI from audio. But I still don't get the advantage of stuffing audio into a MIDI channel. |
Lets say for instance when you rewire cubase and reason, in order to use any sound in reason (EX: just a simple patch from the nn-xt sampler) you have to go through the trouble of setting up a midi channel and having to set the same port number and the whole nine. When it comes down to mixing you have to manually route each patch to a mixer track, meaning you have to go through the trouble of selecting each patch you use and route that to a mixer track in reason then having to re-route that same output back into cubase. Wouldn't it make more sense to just having everything synced with one channel and work with only one channel. The advantage would clearly be the simplicity of workflow. If I can send an entire patch(midi and audio) from reason to cubase I would have the freedom to control the whole patch in cubase, meaning that I am able to work in cubase and not having to switch in between windows re-routing and clicking and confusing myself. If I have audio and midi sent to one channel in cubase, I can now route that to the mixer and done. In my scenario I am using sonik synth 2 and I use many midi channels for one instance of that synth, to use one patch is a pain in the ass having to set up a port number for the synth and syncing a midi channel to it then when I'm ready to mix Its a pain to route each patch I use to a mixer track. So the advantage here is definitely a more logic and forward thinking workflow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pppeeeppee
Junior Member
Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
I JUST THOUGHT OF SOMETHING.................. 
If steinberg implements something like this(My idea about audio and midi) you can actually go a step further than midi. Think about it!!!
If you can do audio and midi(All in one) you can virtually import a full project from one host to another(This includes midi as well as audio) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aural
Member
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 533
Location: Berlin
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
so what you are actually talking about is "glueing" or "linking" corresponding audio and midi channels by default and make them appear as one entity although they are not. correct?
edit: so in a way you are talking about a rewire-channel that is working like a VSTi-channel and instead of routing the midi-data directly to the instrument you route it to rewire-channel 22 for example and have it all in on channel... well, i have no problem with that. sounds reasonable.
_________________
macbook pro 2.16 GHz | 3 GB RAM | OS 10.5.6 | some VSL-stuff | Tascam FW 1082 | Cubase 5.1.1
Last edited by aural on Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arimus
Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2005
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This is a very good idea (if I understood it correctly). Still, it would be cool to be able to record midi data via an audio interface. For example: I play EG, and to record midi I have to switch to midi kb or something equivalent ... really stupid, actually: why do I need different hardware to record midi and audio? Why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pppeeeppee
Junior Member
Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aural wrote: | so what you are actually talking about is "glueing" or "linking" corresponding audio and midi channels by default and make them appear as one entity although they are not. correct?
edit: so in a way you are talking about a rewire-channel that is working like a VSTi-channel and instead of routing the midi-data directly to the instrument you route it to rewire-channel 22 for example and have it all in on channel... well, i have no problem with that. sounds reasonable. |
Yes. In a way sort of.
The problem is that I come across many topics on forums where users have asked how do you route audio to a midi channel, and the answer is usually "Midi and audio are 2 different things altogether". My main point in this whole topic is why did developers code midi to function just like hardware if software is suppose to do what hardware can't.
@aural
I'm actually talking about something different altogether, yes you have the right idea but I'm thinking of something better
What I'm talking about is creating a Universal midi and audio protocol. This would bring two worlds together. Its the same concept like rewire and midi, but what I'm referring to just eases the complicity of tasks.
The Idea:
For now lets call my idea about audio and midi U-AMP(universal audio and midi protocol) or AMP
If you we're to rewire ableton live and reason, you would have to go through the trouble of creating a midi track and a audio track to sequence and such. What I'm talking about is a U-AMP protocol for all daw's to adapt to, so that if I we're to rewire ableton live and reason all I would have to do is create a U-AMP track and that's it everything is linked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pppeeeppee
Junior Member
Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmmm..... Still didn't get a lot of responses here  I don't know why it says I have 729 views.
BTW does anybody know where to suggest ideas to Steinberg. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr Mahogany
Senior Member
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 1465
Location: San Francisco Ca
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
pppeeeppee writes
"Still didn't get a lot of responses here I don't know why it says I have 729 views."
Really? You can't imagaine why 700+ readers didn't reply? I haven't seen any reason for this proposed standard except for helping people who can't figure out how to route midi and audio. Would you spend time reseaching and writing a new standard to help new users avoid learning the basics?
I admire your push for your idea and I hope you give it more thought. If you really expect to get traction maybe list 5 reasons it would improve how things are now.
_________________
Dell Precision 390 2.13 ghz Core Duo / 2gig ECC ram /160g HD /325g sata/500g sata/ Emu 1820M/ XP 64x /CB4 / Komplete 5 / Reason 4 / 13 external synths |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aural
Member
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 533
Location: Berlin
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pppeeeppee wrote: |
@aural
I'm actually talking about something different altogether, yes you have the right idea but I'm thinking of something better
What I'm talking about is creating a Universal midi and audio protocol. This would bring two worlds together. Its the same concept like rewire and midi, but what I'm referring to just eases the complicity of tasks.
The Idea:
For now lets call my idea about audio and midi U-AMP(universal audio and midi protocol) or AMP
If you we're to rewire ableton live and reason, you would have to go through the trouble of creating a midi track and a audio track to sequence and such. What I'm talking about is a U-AMP protocol for all daw's to adapt to, so that if I we're to rewire ableton live and reason all I would have to do is create a U-AMP track and that's it everything is linked. |
no, from what i can tell, you are talking about the same thing that i did, you just give it a fancy name...
_________________
macbook pro 2.16 GHz | 3 GB RAM | OS 10.5.6 | some VSL-stuff | Tascam FW 1082 | Cubase 5.1.1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pppeeeppee
Junior Member
Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr Mahogany wrote: | pppeeeppee writes
"Still didn't get a lot of responses here I don't know why it says I have 729 views."
Really? You can't imagaine why 700+ readers didn't reply? I haven't seen any reason for this proposed standard except for helping people who can't figure out how to route midi and audio. |
WHOA take it easy, no need to get all in a hissy fit.
| Mr Mahogany wrote: | Would you spend time reseaching and writing a new standard to help new users avoid learning the basics?
|
but I'm not a programmer
| Mr Mahogany wrote: |
I admire your push for your idea and I hope you give it more thought. If you really expect to get traction maybe list 5 reasons it would improve how things are now. |
1: There has been numerous of threads that I come across asking specifically how to route audio to a midi track. The answer is usually "midi and audio are 2 different things altogether". This tells me that a lot of people don't understand the concept of how midi and audio could be two different things. "How is it that I am able to route a vst directly to the mixer track, but at the same time I am not able to route audio to a midi track?" One way of improving how things are now is logic and common sense. (Going back to my example with HD TV's and old TV's) why do we need to go through the hassle of hooking up 3-4 wires for audio and video when they are going to the same source, why not just have one wire for audio and video
2: One of the biggest lessons I learned from the transition of using hardware gear(Such as sp1200, Tascam recorder) to using software is that software is 200 steps ahead of everything else. 15-20 years ago if I wanted to sample a record I would literally had to cut through tape and if I had cut the part that I wanted to short then I'm screwed, now on Pro tools if I make a mistake I can hit undo and like magic everything is okay. I wish it was that easy 20 years ago. In using my Tascam recorder, my sound module and my akai sampler there is a lot of cabling involved, due to the main fact that I have 3-4 midi and audio cables for each device. Even before I started using software I have been saying to myself "Why oh why they couldn't just create a standard audio and midi protocol in one". Now software came behind and made the same mistake. So in conclusion to my reason #2, software is suppose to do what hardware can't
3: Having a audio and midi in one would just simplify things. It's literally like killing 6 birds with 2 stones when you think about. | Mr Mahogany wrote: | | I haven't seen any reason for this proposed standard except for helping people who can't figure out how to route midi and audio. |
That's the main reason why an idea like this should be taken seriously. A lot of people just can't figure out how to route midi and audio, this backs up my first reason(1 Isn't the main goal to improve workflow and make life easier Isn't that the main goal of software. It's really a hassle rewiring, actually I don't rewire much often because of the simple fact that rewiring gets confusing. In order for me to rewire the NN-XT(From reason) to ableton live, I am left to complete 6 different tasks while the idea I'm proposing is only 1 task and that's it. Going back to my example of rewiring the NN-XT to ableton live, I would have to set the same midi port number for each device I use, then create a midi track in ableton live, then when I am ready to mix my instrumental I have to route the audio from the NN-XT to the mixer in reason then re-route the output back into ableton live. It gets confusing especially when you don't know too much about the sequencer your rewiring(reason)
4: An idea like a universal audio and midi protocol can take rewiring to another level if you really think about. You would be able to fully import projects from one host to another. Right now if I created a basic loop in cubase and I wanted to import that same project in ableton live, It would be a very difficult task to do because of the simple fact that audio data can't be saved as midi. In order for me to fully import a project from cubase to ableton, I would have to save my sequencing data as midi then I am left with the task of finding the vst's that I used and hope that my loop from cubase sounds the same. The idea I'm proposing is kind of like the idea of freezing tracks, the only thing different is instead of just freezing the track(only having the audio) the midi data is glued as well. I would literally be able to send tracks to Europe to somebody who uses fl studio and they would be able import the project and work on some more ideas(Change notes, portamento, add chords etc) even if they don't have the same vst's as me they would still be able to work on the track because audio and midi is saved as one.
5: An idea like this not only works for rewire but it also works for vst's as well. In my example above I mentioned sonik synth 2 also being a chore to work with because of the re-routing I have to do all the time. Right now if I wanted to use sonik synth I would have to create a midi track for each patch that I use, then when I'm ready to mix I have to go back to my vst and route each patch I use to a mixer track. My idea would involve to create a U-AMP(Universal midi and audio protocol) track and done, everything is on one source, allowing me to work with one track and one track only. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kubaez
Senior Member
Joined: 03 Oct 2005
Posts: 1056
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pppeeeppee wrote: | | 15-20 years ago if I wanted to sample a record I would literally had to cut through tape and if I had cut the part that I wanted to short then I'm screwed |
So, how do you think Pink Floyd's beginning sequence for "Money" was created? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aural
Member
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 533
Location: Berlin
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pppeeeppee wrote: |
Right now if I created a basic loop in cubase and I wanted to import that same project in ableton live, It would be a very difficult task to do because of the simple fact that audio data can't be saved as midi. In order for me to fully import a project from cubase to ableton, I would have to save my sequencing data as midi then I am left with the task of finding the vst's that I used and hope that my loop from cubase sounds the same. The idea I'm proposing is kind of like the idea of freezing tracks, the only thing different is instead of just freezing the track(only having the audio) the midi data is glued as well. I would literally be able to send tracks to Europe to somebody who uses fl studio and they would be able import the project and work on some more ideas(Change notes, portamento, add chords etc) even if they don't have the same vst's as me they would still be able to work on the track because audio and midi is saved as one.
|
well, first of all audio cannot be saved as a MIDI-file and with your approach it won´t either. you basically invoke a "meta-protocol", something like .omf.
and then let´s take a look what concequences this would have:
ALL DAWs would apply a completely interchangeable format. may sound great for the user, but no company would think about that, because every company wants to have exclusive properties for their programs, so that people cannot interchange files between different DAWs. they want people to use merely their program and force them by that to crossgrade, which is perfectly understandable from a company´s point of view. and it would also imply that the major companies would have to cooperate to come up with a common standard. i don´t know if this is realistic, although it has happened with the VST-standard for example, but that is sth that applies to third-party software. although we do have that standard, it is not possible to open a cubase-plugin in logic. guess why? they don´t want that. a company wants to give the user reasons to go for their product and merely for their product. what you propose may sound like a user´s dream, but i suppose it will never happen that you´ll be able so open a logic-project inside of cubase, which actually is what you sort of propose.
_________________
macbook pro 2.16 GHz | 3 GB RAM | OS 10.5.6 | some VSL-stuff | Tascam FW 1082 | Cubase 5.1.1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheHobbit
Member
Joined: 17 Jan 2009
Posts: 474
Location: U.K
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Surely the VST Instrument feature in Cubase 5 does exactly what you are angling towards.
Set up a midi instrument externally or a vst and bingo midi and audio on one track? Is that what you mean?
_________________
○ PC • Synths • Audio Interface • Mixer • Ext FX • Plugins ○
"Music is the language of the spirit. It opens the secret of life bringing peace, abolishing strife. " |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pppeeeppee
Junior Member
Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aural wrote: | | pppeeeppee wrote: |
Right now if I created a basic loop in cubase and I wanted to import that same project in ableton live, It would be a very difficult task to do because of the simple fact that audio data can't be saved as midi. In order for me to fully import a project from cubase to ableton, I would have to save my sequencing data as midi then I am left with the task of finding the vst's that I used and hope that my loop from cubase sounds the same. The idea I'm proposing is kind of like the idea of freezing tracks, the only thing different is instead of just freezing the track(only having the audio) the midi data is glued as well. I would literally be able to send tracks to Europe to somebody who uses fl studio and they would be able import the project and work on some more ideas(Change notes, portamento, add chords etc) even if they don't have the same vst's as me they would still be able to work on the track because audio and midi is saved as one.
|
well, first of all audio cannot be saved as a MIDI-file and with your approach it won´t either. you basically invoke a "meta-protocol", something like .omf.
and then let´s take a look what concequences this would have:
ALL DAWs would apply a completely interchangeable format. may sound great for the user, but no company would think about that, because every company wants to have exclusive properties for their programs, so that people cannot interchange files between different DAWs. they want people to use merely their program and force them by that to crossgrade, |
Not true, because if this was the way of how companies truly thinked then there would not be such a thing called "Rewire".
| aural wrote: |
and it would also imply that the major companies would have to cooperate to come up with a common standard. |
Are you implying that this would be a lot of work for companies to do? This has been done many times before. When Steinberg introduced rewire other companies adapted the idea, same thing with vst's(like you mentioned) same thing with AAIF files and same thing with midi, once it becomes popular and in demand companies will indeed adapt to the idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aural
Member
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 533
Location: Berlin
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pppeeeppee wrote: | | aural wrote: | | pppeeeppee wrote: |
Right now if I created a basic loop in cubase and I wanted to import that same project in ableton live, It would be a very difficult task to do because of the simple fact that audio data can't be saved as midi. In order for me to fully import a project from cubase to ableton, I would have to save my sequencing data as midi then I am left with the task of finding the vst's that I used and hope that my loop from cubase sounds the same. The idea I'm proposing is kind of like the idea of freezing tracks, the only thing different is instead of just freezing the track(only having the audio) the midi data is glued as well. I would literally be able to send tracks to Europe to somebody who uses fl studio and they would be able import the project and work on some more ideas(Change notes, portamento, add chords etc) even if they don't have the same vst's as me they would still be able to work on the track because audio and midi is saved as one.
|
well, first of all audio cannot be saved as a MIDI-file and with your approach it won´t either. you basically invoke a "meta-protocol", something like .omf.
and then let´s take a look what concequences this would have:
ALL DAWs would apply a completely interchangeable format. may sound great for the user, but no company would think about that, because every company wants to have exclusive properties for their programs, so that people cannot interchange files between different DAWs. they want people to use merely their program and force them by that to crossgrade, |
Not true, because if this was the way of how companies truly thinked then there would not be such a thing called "Rewire".
|
when did you last rewire cubase with logic?
_________________
macbook pro 2.16 GHz | 3 GB RAM | OS 10.5.6 | some VSL-stuff | Tascam FW 1082 | Cubase 5.1.1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kubaez
Senior Member
Joined: 03 Oct 2005
Posts: 1056
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aural wrote: | | when did you last rewire cubase with logic? |
Don't you see that there is no logic involved in this thread?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aural
Member
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 533
Location: Berlin
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kubaez wrote: | | aural wrote: | | when did you last rewire cubase with logic? |
Don't you see that there is no logic involved in this thread? |
i do.
that´s why i try to argue with logic i know, it´s pointless though...
_________________
macbook pro 2.16 GHz | 3 GB RAM | OS 10.5.6 | some VSL-stuff | Tascam FW 1082 | Cubase 5.1.1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pppeeeppee
Junior Member
Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aural wrote: | | pppeeeppee wrote: | | aural wrote: | | pppeeeppee wrote: |
Right now if I created a basic loop in cubase and I wanted to import that same project in ableton live, It would be a very difficult task to do because of the simple fact that audio data can't be saved as midi. In order for me to fully import a project from cubase to ableton, I would have to save my sequencing data as midi then I am left with the task of finding the vst's that I used and hope that my loop from cubase sounds the same. The idea I'm proposing is kind of like the idea of freezing tracks, the only thing different is instead of just freezing the track(only having the audio) the midi data is glued as well. I would literally be able to send tracks to Europe to somebody who uses fl studio and they would be able import the project and work on some more ideas(Change notes, portamento, add chords etc) even if they don't have the same vst's as me they would still be able to work on the track because audio and midi is saved as one.
|
well, first of all audio cannot be saved as a MIDI-file and with your approach it won´t either. you basically invoke a "meta-protocol", something like .omf.
and then let´s take a look what concequences this would have:
ALL DAWs would apply a completely interchangeable format. may sound great for the user, but no company would think about that, because every company wants to have exclusive properties for their programs, so that people cannot interchange files between different DAWs. they want people to use merely their program and force them by that to crossgrade, |
Not true, because if this was the way of how companies truly thinked then there would not be such a thing called "Rewire".
|
when did you last rewire cubase with logic? |
I never rewired cubase with logic, but your saying that every company wants their property exclusive. I said its not true because if EVERY company thought that way then there would not been such a thing called "Rewire". Of course your always going to have your exceptions(Logic) How does the saying go "No matter what, you will always have one bad apple in the bunch"
I just want to make a valid point before everyone starts going off topic, I strongly feel that there should of been a audio/midi protocol before the move to software. If I have an Akai sampler and pro tools and I want to bounce down my tracks why do I have to use 2 separate wires(audio and midi cables) if they are going to the same source. Someone should have figured out if a audio and midi cable are going to the same source why not connect the dots and come up with a standard audio/midi protocol. Same example with HD TV's, Why have 3 separate wires if you know they are going to the same source, why not create a standard HDMI wire for audio and video in one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aural
Member
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 533
Location: Berlin
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pppeeeppee wrote: |
I never rewired cubase with logic, but your saying that every company wants their property exclusive. I said its not true because if EVERY company thought that way then there would not been such a thing called "Rewire". Of course your always going to have your exceptions(Logic) How does the saying go "No matter what, you will always have one bad apple in the bunch"
|
logic is not the exception. you cannot rewire two direct competitors in the field of sequencing. companies want their sequencers to be the master, not the slave. the only exception to this is, as far as i know, ableton live and the reason for it is also simple. ableton is, as far as the features of professional sequencers go, just not in the same league as the major players. yet live has features on its own that make a nice addition to cubase, logic, DP, whatever. if you want to talk about exceptions from the rule that sequencers cannot be linked via rewire, then you should talk about ableton live. i hope it´s clear now, that direct competitors don´t want interchangeability.
| Quote: | | If I have an Akai sampler and pro tools and I want to bounce down my tracks why do I have to use 2 separate wires(audio and midi cables) if they are going to the same source. Someone should have figured out if a audio and midi cable are going to the same source why not connect the dots and come up with a standard audio/midi protocol. |
then go ahead and think of a way to reasonably come up with a standard that incorporates 16 MIDI-Channels and .... well... hm... how many audio-channels??? there is almost an endless number of possibilities, depending on how many MIDI-instruments you incorporate and on how many audio-channels they return. you need at least 16 audio-channels in the same cable and then you merely have mono. if you want every MIDI-device to return suround-information, you already need 80 audio-channels. you see: there the problem already starts. it´s fairly simple to come up with a protocol if you just want to hook up ONE piece of MIDI-equipment that returns just ONE channel of audio... if you think about it that way, your idea would give us less options than we have now. you have to think that through first. and this would not even be a common protocol. it would just be two different protocols running through the same cable. no matter if we are on the hardware or on the software-side.
_________________
macbook pro 2.16 GHz | 3 GB RAM | OS 10.5.6 | some VSL-stuff | Tascam FW 1082 | Cubase 5.1.1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pppeeeppee
Junior Member
Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aural wrote: |
| pppeeeppee wrote: | | If I have an Akai sampler and pro tools and I want to bounce down my tracks why do I have to use 2 separate wires(audio and midi cables) if they are going to the same source. Someone should have figured out if a audio and midi cable are going to the same source why not connect the dots and come up with a standard audio/midi protocol. |
then go ahead and think of a way to reasonably come up with a standard that incorporates 16 MIDI-Channels and .... well... hm... how many audio-channels??? there is almost an endless number of possibilities, depending on how many MIDI-instruments you incorporate and on how many audio-channels they return. you need at least 16 audio-channels in the same cable and then you merely have mono. if you want every MIDI-device to return suround-information, you already need 80 audio-channels. you see: there the problem already starts. it´s fairly simple to come up with a protocol if you just want to hook up ONE piece of MIDI-equipment that returns just ONE channel of audio... if you think about it that way, your idea would give us less options than we have now. you have to think that through first. |
But you see, this is exactly what I've tried to explain all along.
Yes, in order to create a hardware standard protocol cable for lets say 80 midi channels and 80 audio channels that would be a headache. What I'm trying to get you to realize is that it might be hard to do with hardware but with software you can program anything. Something like this should of been thought of years ago, but now everybody has moved on to software so lets try to figure out a way to do this same idea virtually
| aural wrote: | | and this would not even be a common protocol. it would just be two different protocols running through the same cable. |
Not really, its possible to program an entirely new protocol. Its the same concept with project files, you can't load a cubase project file on ableton live because both programs are coded different, but they can both load vst's because they can read the same protocol. Basically if steinberg can come up with their own protocol to code standard vsts then I don't see why they can't come up with an entirely new protocol for audio and midi in one. This goes with my same example with HD TV's, sure not every remote is going to work on every TV because each remote was programmed to work with the certain brand of the TV but each HD TV will have HDMI jack to plug-in to get High definition because its a standard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
