What it means to test Project 5 with external MIDI devices...
It means I can drag in some of my gear =)
Yamaha AN200 in the foreground, SCI six-trak to the right. Here's to a happy marriage with Project5.
Roland - Cakewalk QA
Yamaha AN200 in the foreground, SCI six-trak to the right. Here's to a happy marriage with Project5.
Roland - Cakewalk QA
posted by Roland [Cakewalk QA] at 10:35 AM
Subscribe
5 Comments:
Show us what you can do with those bad boys!
well, come on by.
I'd make a rekkid if I had the time...
Okay, I'll admit we were kinda vague here ;)
People will ask, 'what does this mean to me?' Fair enough!
1) Multiple MIDI tracks can feed the same destination port
2) Port, channel, etc are set from the inspector - just like any other virtual instrument
3) Currently we're implementing MIDI out as a new track type, the most obvious difference being that these tracks lack audio effects or mix options. At the moment, MIDI out does also exist as an option on DXi/VSTi tracks, as clips could be used to double a synth part or control an external processor. While this can be a nice option to have I'm not sure yet if it justifies the extra real estate.
3) If we follow the paradigm of (virtual) instruments in Project5 then this should allow someone to browse and select external instruments in the same manner as they do with DXi/VSTi. Of course you can also use the 'replace' command to swap back and forth between instrument types.
Maintaining the illusion that there is no difference between a real and virtual instrument is trickier than it may seem. For example, the volume/pan controls on this new track type have to use CCs 7 and 10 since there's no audio stream to deal with. If you've got a particularly 'vintage' piece of gear then it may ignore CCs altogether and in fact most of my synths are mono so its moot. So while there are some details to be sorted still, its already making h/w integration a lot easier.
-jesse
This is VERY good news!
I know I'm a bit of a dinosaur, but I can't imagine that I'd actually get any money for most of my old hardware synthesizers if I wanted to sell them in the first place, and in the second place, I like them. They sound cool, and I know them pretty well (I used to know them better!!!)
Anything that makes it easier to integrate them back into the studio will be a huge plus!
And I've been having pretty decent success with Sonar and the old toys, but I think P5 could be an even more effective home for them.
I am not sure how useful it will e to have multiple MIDI tracks feed the same destination port - most of my hardware is somewhat "voice challenged", but hey, I might surprise me.
The ability to send the data from a single track to one or more software and hardware synths is pretty exciting though!!!!! Imagine the stacked sounds that will be created... it definately justifies the extra real estate in my book (on my screen?)
The ability to treat external hardware as if it is just another resource is the way to go, and one of my few gripes about Sonar MIDI. IF you do this, please bear in mind that some of us are using external applications to manage and edit patches... please, let us have some mechanism to keep things in sync. MIDIQuest can write to Master.ins or keep it's own XML based database. Something to consider eh?
I would not worry about synths that do not respond to CC messages... if they don't they don't, and the owner will probably be well aware of that limitation.
DANG, this is very cool news!
(BTW Roland, I have an SCI MultiTracks and DrumTracks combo... these were my first two MIDI devices, and they still make some sounds that I just can't get anywhere else.)
Yes, yes, yes.... thats it !!! using xternal gear was the only feature I miss...
Just forget QUBIX or LOGIX - For live
Gigs is P5 the real deal
THANKS A LOT
Post a Comment
<< Home