Vegas: Add MIDI and here's why...

Bat wrote on 8/17/1999, 5:55 PM
Ok,

I should just start off letting you know that I've read
some of the threads about how MIDI will not be supported in
Vegas and I've even received that comment privately from SF
people but I would like to stress the following:

First, I've been using sequencers/MIDI/Digital Audio
stations for years... many of them... Actually since they
started.

I was a beta-tester for Dr. T's Omega when the Atari
was 'Da Bomb' and from there I went to the PC/Mac world.
Sound Designer, Pro-Tools, Cakewalk, Cubase, etc... After a
few months of messing around with various platforms, I
found that the Mac basically when it came to logical MIDI
sequencing and audio support simply destroyed the PC in
ease, features and reliability. This was around 10 years
ago.

Recently, I looked at my $800 used PowerMac 7500 with an
additional $100 over the years pushing it up to a 604e
200mhz, and then I looked at my $300 AMD K6-2 400Mhz and
winced. The PC for audio could kick the Mac's ass when it
comes to multi-track audio support. My favorite software on
the Mac, Digital Performer, was beginning to show signs of
lagging and 'not keeping up with the cost ratio times'. In
other words, it takes a $2600 G3 to equal the audio/MIDI
power of a $300 AMD K6-2 400mhz machine.

So 2 weeks ago, I switched the MIDI interface over to the
PC and had a chance to test all the various MIDI software
w/digital audio programs out there from Cakewalk 8 to
Cubase VST to Logic to several others.

Bottom line folks is that I'm most likely going back to Mac.

Why? Simply put, the interfaces for all of these programs
are horrid. Cryptic, messy, too many useless features,
illogical represenation of data and/or how to get to it and
the lack of various features.

Don't get me wrong. The one piece of software that takes
the cake for the all time worst interface in the world is
StudioVision on the Mac yet some people swear by it and
more power to them...

In fact, I understand that many people are happy with the
likes of Cubase, Cakewalk, etc... however, it mostly sounds
like it as well...

What I've just seen these past few weeks is that the reason
the Mac is the 'studio standard' (and it is no matter how
much bitching you want to do), the reason that is has what
I can safely say a lot to do with the horrid interface
design of the PC based MIDI/Digital Audio combo sequencers.

Now, there are a couple of things I'm pursuing. One is to
force Mark Of The Unicorn to port DP for the PC. The other
was to more subtly 'recommend' Sonic Foundry to add MIDI
support to Vegas.

My first response was that infamous "NO" as "The SF team
says MIDI is dead". Well, that's simply shooting yourself
in the foot. How do you think those loops are made on those
ACID CD's? By ripping others material over and over and
over again? No... MIDI is the foundation of creation in the
music world.

Ok, so I once again am asking, begging if you may, to add
MIDI support to VEGAS. THIS I will safely say cause two
things to happen.

1. Create a product that DOES NOT exist on the PC. Cubase,
Logic, Cakewalk, etc... - they all don't have the logical
audio format that Vegas excells in. They also don't even
come close to supporting the simple things like "MIXDOWN
(region/selection) TO SINGLE FILE" (HELLO!?)... as well as
many other things. It's a safe bet people would be jumping
ship for Vegas.

2. Create a product for the first time that would actually
have the Mac music community looking to the PC for serious
sound production. Sound Forge kicks the living bit shit out
of Sound Designer and Peak on the Mac. Why not create the
god-like of all MIDI Sequencers and be done with it. The
only possible competition would be a port of Digital
Performer ;-)

And oh yea, syncing Vegas to an external
application/computer... barf... oh boy... yet another
renegade application having to run without any true
relationship other then sync... please... let's not go
there.

Ok... my bitching is over.

Put MIDI support into Vegas and you will sell a lot more
copies. Plain and simple. You may even finally give the Mac
world a run for it's money. All you would have to do then
is truely support SoundDesigner files (I copied one over
and it didn't support it although I think it said it
does... something about headers or the likes...) and that
would pretty much seal the fate of the Mac.

Cost of fast Mac to run decent sequencing audio software:
$2400 min.

Cost of fast PC to run dream version of Vegas (Hell, call
it Vegas STRIP!) - $500 for a screaming P-III 500mhz (at
least by the time MIDI was implemented eh... hell if not
cheaper).

You do the math.. even the Mac would probably bottom out at
24 to 48 audio tracks max... what would a P-III 500 max out
at? 128?

Anyways... my 2 cents over.

bat
http://www.cyberden.com/

Comments

tolerpro wrote on 8/17/1999, 11:58 PM
Peter,

I agree with many of your points. I don't, however, feel that MIDI
support should be rushed into Vegas anytime soon.

The application needs to be kept focused for the near term in order
to quickly mature into the solid tool that it shows every indication
of becoming. Attempting to produce a MIDI sequencer with enough
features to compete with the entrenched competition is difficult
enough. Burdening the Vegas development group with this task in
addition to their current Herculean effort is probably beyond the
resources currently at their disposal.

Let's give the team a chance to create a winner and then, perhaps,
address this issue when Vegas is ready.

In the meantime, I'm having success running Master Tracks Pro on a
Quadra 700 alongside my 600MHz PIII running Vegas. This lets me:

- Continue to get a return on my expensive Macintosh investment.

- Continue to have access to my archive of work already in Master
Tracks format.

- Have MIDI and multitrack audio with a minimal learning curve.

- Maintain dual-format access for clients.

I could go on... Hope you continue to have success with Vegas and
that the folks at SF continue to be successful with it.

Brian Woodard

---

Peter Stone wrote:
>>Ok,
>>
>>I should just start off letting you know that I've read
>>some of the threads about how MIDI will not be supported in
>>Vegas and I've even received that comment privately from SF
>>people but I would like to stress the following:
>>
>>First, I've been using sequencers/MIDI/Digital Audio
>>stations for years... many of them... Actually since they
>>started.
>>
>>I was a beta-tester for Dr. T's Omega when the Atari
>>was 'Da Bomb' and from there I went to the PC/Mac world.
>>Sound Designer, Pro-Tools, Cakewalk, Cubase, etc... After a
>>few months of messing around with various platforms, I
>>found that the Mac basically when it came to logical MIDI
>>sequencing and audio support simply destroyed the PC in
>>ease, features and reliability. This was around 10 years
>>ago.
>>
>>Recently, I looked at my $800 used PowerMac 7500 with an
>>additional $100 over the years pushing it up to a 604e
>>200mhz, and then I looked at my $300 AMD K6-2 400Mhz and
>>winced. The PC for audio could kick the Mac's ass when it
>>comes to multi-track audio support. My favorite software on
>>the Mac, Digital Performer, was beginning to show signs of
>>lagging and 'not keeping up with the cost ratio times'. In
>>other words, it takes a $2600 G3 to equal the audio/MIDI
>>power of a $300 AMD K6-2 400mhz machine.
>>
>>So 2 weeks ago, I switched the MIDI interface over to the
>>PC and had a chance to test all the various MIDI software
>>w/digital audio programs out there from Cakewalk 8 to
>>Cubase VST to Logic to several others.
>>
>>Bottom line folks is that I'm most likely going back to Mac.
>>
>>Why? Simply put, the interfaces for all of these programs
>>are horrid. Cryptic, messy, too many useless features,
>>illogical represenation of data and/or how to get to it and
>>the lack of various features.
>>
>>Don't get me wrong. The one piece of software that takes
>>the cake for the all time worst interface in the world is
>>StudioVision on the Mac yet some people swear by it and
>>more power to them...
>>
>>In fact, I understand that many people are happy with the
>>likes of Cubase, Cakewalk, etc... however, it mostly sounds
>>like it as well...
>>
>>What I've just seen these past few weeks is that the reason
>>the Mac is the 'studio standard' (and it is no matter how
>>much bitching you want to do), the reason that is has what
>>I can safely say a lot to do with the horrid interface
>>design of the PC based MIDI/Digital Audio combo sequencers.
>>
>>Now, there are a couple of things I'm pursuing. One is to
>>force Mark Of The Unicorn to port DP for the PC. The other
>>was to more subtly 'recommend' Sonic Foundry to add MIDI
>>support to Vegas.
>>
>>My first response was that infamous "NO" as "The SF team
>>says MIDI is dead". Well, that's simply shooting yourself
>>in the foot. How do you think those loops are made on those
>>ACID CD's? By ripping others material over and over and
>>over again? No... MIDI is the foundation of creation in the
>>music world.
>>
>>Ok, so I once again am asking, begging if you may, to add
>>MIDI support to VEGAS. THIS I will safely say cause two
>>things to happen.
>>
>>1. Create a product that DOES NOT exist on the PC. Cubase,
>>Logic, Cakewalk, etc... - they all don't have the logical
>>audio format that Vegas excells in. They also don't even
>>come close to supporting the simple things like "MIXDOWN
>>(region/selection) TO SINGLE FILE" (HELLO!?)... as well as
>>many other things. It's a safe bet people would be jumping
>>ship for Vegas.
>>
>>2. Create a product for the first time that would actually
>>have the Mac music community looking to the PC for serious
>>sound production. Sound Forge kicks the living bit shit out
>>of Sound Designer and Peak on the Mac. Why not create the
>>god-like of all MIDI Sequencers and be done with it. The
>>only possible competition would be a port of Digital
>>Performer ;-)
>>
>>And oh yea, syncing Vegas to an external
>>application/computer... barf... oh boy... yet another
>>renegade application having to run without any true
>>relationship other then sync... please... let's not go
>>there.
>>
>>Ok... my bitching is over.
>>
>>Put MIDI support into Vegas and you will sell a lot more
>>copies. Plain and simple. You may even finally give the Mac
>>world a run for it's money. All you would have to do then
>>is truely support SoundDesigner files (I copied one over
>>and it didn't support it although I think it said it
>>does... something about headers or the likes...) and that
>>would pretty much seal the fate of the Mac.
>>
>>Cost of fast Mac to run decent sequencing audio software:
>>$2400 min.
>>
>>Cost of fast PC to run dream version of Vegas (Hell, call
>>it Vegas STRIP!) - $500 for a screaming P-III 500mhz (at
>>least by the time MIDI was implemented eh... hell if not
>>cheaper).
>>
>>You do the math.. even the Mac would probably bottom out at
>>24 to 48 audio tracks max... what would a P-III 500 max out
>>at? 128?
>>
>>Anyways... my 2 cents over.
>>
>>bat
>>http://www.cyberden.com/
wgallant wrote on 8/18/1999, 8:13 AM
Well said, Brian.

While Peter has many valid points, some may find it difficult to
believe that many commercial facilities still consider MIDI a cross
to bear and many have a client base that abhorrs sequencing of any
type.

Working in one such, it was refreshing to finally find a multitack
recorder/editor that actually had the "multitrack" audio and "editor"
part that was not just something cobbled on top of a MIDI sequencer
as an apparent afterthought, a la CuBase.

I personally would prefer to see a program like VP remain, at the
very least, available in a MIDI free version.

Just my .02 cents.

Willg


Brian Woodard wrote:

>>The application needs to be kept focused for the near term in order
>>to quickly mature into the solid tool that it shows every
>>indication of becoming
FP wrote on 8/18/1999, 9:41 AM
I want to second the idea that MIDI is important, but don't worry
about adding it to Vegas anytime soon. Development $ and time is not
infinite and watching Vegas turn into another half-baked everything
and the kitchen sink app would really be sad.

my 2 cents
Bat wrote on 8/18/1999, 12:58 PM


Brian Woodard wrote:
>>Peter,
>>
>>I agree with many of your points. I don't, however, feel that MIDI
>>support should be rushed into Vegas anytime soon.
>>
>>The application needs to be kept focused for the near term in order
>>to quickly mature into the solid tool that it shows every
indication
>>of becoming. Attempting to produce a MIDI sequencer with enough
>>features to compete with the entrenched competition is difficult
>>enough. Burdening the Vegas development group with this task in
>>addition to their current Herculean effort is probably beyond the
>>resources currently at their disposal.
>>Let's give the team a chance to create a winner and then, perhaps,
>>address this issue when Vegas is ready.

In all seriousness, it looks pretty damn above and beyond anything
that's out there already ;-)

>>In the meantime, I'm having success running Master Tracks Pro on a
>>Quadra 700 alongside my 600MHz PIII running Vegas. This lets me:

Yes, syncing a secondary machine... I've done this with my Atari ST
syncing Premiere on my old Quad 700 (which is in the closet now) yet
I find that for song writing and development work, it's kind of a
major pain to have source on seperate machines for various reasons.

Having the Mac around to accomodate clients with Mac formats is nice,
but that ends up just being a big convert SD file to .WAV session if
I can help it. ;-)

Bat
Bat wrote on 8/18/1999, 1:22 PM


Will Gallant wrote:
>>Well said, Brian.
>>
>>While Peter has many valid points, some may find it difficult to
>>believe that many commercial facilities still consider MIDI a cross
>>to bear and many have a client base that abhorrs sequencing of any
>>type.

Don't get me wrong or anything, but I totally don't understand this
logic and quite frankly, I don't believe this for one second. I can't
fathom that any production company with any technical or creative
team would even make such a statement.

What I am seeing is that many companies or individuals don't want to
deal with MIDI simply because they want instant creative
gratification based upon the same sounding pre-recorded loops and
sounds. I think today's musicians are possibly too lazy to want to
deal with MIDI, don't want to spend big bucks on a good MIDI+Audio
sequencer (and there ARE NONE on the PC ;-) ), don't want to then
spend another $5,000 - $10,000 for keyboards, mixers, MIDI
interfaces, etc... it all scares them. Hell, for $599 they can get a
kicken PC and for another $300 or so, get some great software that
makes them an instant star... whom sounds like the other 1,000,000
people who try and release their music the same way.

I know for a fact also that the current trend of music in the scene
has been fueled by massive laziness - simplicity - sometimes that
works, but now most artists are more interested in getting the quick
fix and quite honestly, don't have the brains to understand the MIDI
studio. However, those who do end up creating the loops and sounds
those people end up using.

It all comes down to marketing and the media raping us for their
benefit, but I'll save that for another soap-box day ;-)

(Don't get me wrong, programs like ACID and some loops/sound CD's
provide /SOURCE/ material and remixing options), but thousands of
musicians today are all using the same loops, same sounds, same
pattern technique of writing with no real ability for expressive
creation.

MIDI allows specific and detailed control of those funny little boxes
that ended up MAKING those loops and sounds that everyone these days
is using to make their music. They also allow for way more control
over various parameters impossible to duplicate with this
current 'trend' of music making...

Remember what happened with ReBirth? Wow - cool program. 2 years
later and no one wants it as there are now 1000 songs on the radio
that have that 'ReBirth' sound. It's slowly happening with the loop
scene...

Sigh... I know these are my personal views, but after being rooted in
the music / midi / electronic music scene for almost 20 years, I've
had a chance to see the trends come and go as well as watch the
effects on the market....

Ok - Bitchbox off
Bat


tolerpro wrote on 8/18/1999, 3:00 PM


Peter Stone wrote:
>>Don't get me wrong or anything, but I totally don't understand this
>>logic and quite frankly, I don't believe this for one second. I
can't
>>fathom that any production company with any technical or creative
>>team would even make such a statement.

While there is much to be said for the paucity of talent in the
industry today, there are quite a few artists out there who actually
can play acoustic instruments and who really do have a lot of
resistance to tracks built on sequencing...

Brian Woodard
tolerpro wrote on 8/18/1999, 3:10 PM


Peter Stone wrote:
>>Yes, syncing a secondary machine... I've done this with my Atari ST
>>syncing Premiere on my old Quad 700 (which is in the closet now)
yet
>>I find that for song writing and development work, it's kind of a
>>major pain to have source on seperate machines for various reasons.

Having spent many years synching a drum machine to tape, synching a
computer to tape, synching a drum machine to a computer, this
configuration is quite a bit easier.

Besides, combining MIDI and Vegas on one machine will cost you some
tracks in lost processor bandwidth.

Brian Woodard
wgallant wrote on 8/19/1999, 8:37 AM
Reading these comments, one gets the distinct impression that without
MIDI, there is no legitimacy in the music business.

Go ahead, talk MIDI to the likes of Marsalis, Coltrane, TOP, Vaughn,
King, Monk, Manhattan Xfer, Lovett, Griffith, Neville Bros, Little
Feat ... and other countless groovemeisters on and on, ad infinitum.

Many of us predate the "Musical Instrument Device Interface" when
musicians played their instruments eyeball to eyeball and prided
themselves in meeting on top of the beat and shaking hands, without
the use of MIDI, sequencing, loops or drum machines.

Believe it, man ... there are "production companies" with "technical
and creative teams" that cater to this old fashion concept and have a
happening and flourishing business. Without MIDI!

Yes, even today! :)

Perhaps 20 years in the business is not long enough to have a lock on
the definitive "logic" of the "music .... scene"?

Willg

Peter Stone wrote:

>>Don't get me wrong or anything, but I totally don't understand this
>>logic and quite frankly, I don't believe this for one second. I
can't
>>fathom that any production company with any technical or creative
>>team would even make such a statement.

>>Sigh... I know these are my personal views, but after being rooted
in
>>the music / midi / electronic music scene for almost 20 years, I've
>>had a chance to see the trends come and go as well as watch the
>>effects on the market....
Bat wrote on 8/20/1999, 1:31 AM
Brian Woodard wrote:
>>
>>
>>Peter Stone wrote:
>>>>Don't get me wrong or anything, but I totally don't understand
this
>>>>logic and quite frankly, I don't believe this for one second. I
>>can't
>>>>fathom that any production company with any technical or creative
>>>>team would even make such a statement.
>>
>>While there is much to be said for the paucity of talent in the
>>industry today, there are quite a few artists out there who actually
>>can play acoustic instruments and who really do have a lot of
>>resistance to tracks built on sequencing...
>>
>>Brian Woodard

??? I don't see the connection - sounds like apples and oranges. I've
met some that swear by it as it allows to add accompanyments they
could not have in a normal situation. Those that I've met who don't
want sequencing are simply too intimidated by the thought.

I was focusing on the professional quality of Vegas and the track
record of previous products brought out by SF...
Bat wrote on 8/20/1999, 1:36 AM
Brian Woodard wrote:
>>
>>
>>Peter Stone wrote:
>>>>Yes, syncing a secondary machine... I've done this with my Atari
ST
>>>>syncing Premiere on my old Quad 700 (which is in the closet now)
>>yet
>>>>I find that for song writing and development work, it's kind of a
>>>>major pain to have source on seperate machines for various
reasons.
>>
>>Having spent many years synching a drum machine to tape, synching a
>>computer to tape, synching a drum machine to a computer, this
>>configuration is quite a bit easier.

Sure - Back when there wasn't a computer that had the capability to do
the things they can do today. The more items you have to sync up, the
more that things can become out of sync, prone to drop-outs, etc...

I swear - 10 minutes with Digital Performer and you'll change your
mind.

>>Besides, combining MIDI and Vegas on one machine will cost you some
>>tracks in lost processor bandwidth.

It shouldn't. I worked on MIDI firmware and software and MIDI is not a
hog at all. It's quite slow actually. There are sequencers that work
just fine with MIDI and Digital Audio for those who can stand to use
them on the PC :-)

A friend of mine who works for the SAW people said their new MIDI +
Digital Audio software started to have problems at 25 digital audio
tracks running w/MIDI. That was on a slow machine I believe as well.

If anything, MIDI implementation should knock out only around 2% of
your digital audio bandwidth capabilitie
Bat wrote on 8/20/1999, 1:55 AM
Will Gallant wrote:
>>
>>Reading these comments, one gets the distinct impression that
without
>>MIDI, there is no legitimacy in the music business.

Hmmm... well, let me see... no, I never said that.

>>Go ahead, talk MIDI to the likes of Marsalis, Coltrane, TOP, Vaughn,
>>King, Monk, Manhattan Xfer, Lovett, Griffith, Neville Bros, Little
>>Feat ... and other countless groovemeisters on and on, ad infinitum.

Ok - have you talked to these people personally? While I haven't, I
can see quite a few of them don't need MIDI anymore then a digital
audio recording program. Tapes works just fine. But in all
seriousness, you may be blown away just how many of those bands
actually do use MIDI when recording in a studio. It's very common to
have various parts sequenced in one way or another be it the Drum
track, a secondary keyboard part, etc... I've seen it happen with
those "guitar" and notorious "live only" bands many times once they
hit the studio... Not all of them, but quite a few.

>>
>>Many of us predate the "Musical Instrument Digital Interface" when
>>musicians played their instruments eyeball to eyeball and prided
>>themselves in meeting on top of the beat and shaking hands, without
>>the use of MIDI, sequencing, loops or drum machines.
>>Believe it, man ... there are "production companies" with "technical
>>and creative teams" that cater to this old fashion concept and have
a
>>happening and flourishing business. Without MIDI!
>>
>>Yes, even today! :)

Yes, some production companies don't use MIDI because some production
companies are not studios and are there to remix and create masters
from pre-existing master tapes be it on HD or DAT, 1/4" reels, etc...
Any true pro company will have MIDI automation and possibly a studio
wing with a full keyboard / sampler rig. These are commonly used lay
on additional vocals or fix problematic drum tracks, etc...


>>Perhaps 20 years in the business is not long enough to have a lock
on
>>the definitive "logic" of the "music .... scene"?
>>Willg


Hmmm.... well.... while there are those older then me in the scene... I'd have to say... NO!!! I've actually had the pleasure of meeting quite a few professionals in the scene since I first got into the electronic side of it back in 79. My sister worked for various production studios and so from time to time, I would hang out, observe... over the years I ended up at various studios, hanging out with the likes of Bob Moog, did the Namm shows, etc... and while my background was on the electronic side, I did observe non-electronic sessions as well... So yes, with the contacts I've made and the personal experience I've had... I can say my grasp on the 'Music Scene' /IS/ far beyond 85% of most others. I'll let you in on a little secret about those "non-MIDI" type bands... many a band has secretly or post had to have some of their parts sampled and MIDI'ed due to various /problems/... vocals have been manipulated post with fx, drums cut up and re-timed, melodies sequenced due to 'sloppy playing', etc... I'm not saying it's impossible for a non-MIDI band to cut an album... but in reality... unless you're a grunge/R&R band, lounge act or a symphony, you're going to at one time be utilizing MIDI for something sooner or later... hmm... actually... all of those use MIDI too sometimes... It's just there... a part of our lives... it won't go away... I remember when the MIDI II spec was put up for consideration... that was almost 10 years ago... our brains just don't need the extra speed as we can't hear and process any faster then what MIDI provides... All the timing issues were solved with external MIDI interfaces that offer multiple in/out configurations... Ok - I'm getting off topic. PS
wgallant wrote on 8/20/1999, 7:53 AM
Hi Peter,

AAMOF, Yes. At least three on the list have recorded at the facility
where I work, and I haven't been "blown away" by anything sequenced
since "Switched on Bach" oh so many years ago. :)

Cheers,
Willg

Peter Stone wrote:

>>Ok - have you talked to these people personally? While I haven't, I
>>can see quite a few of them don't need MIDI anymore then a digital
>>audio recording program. Tapes works just fine. But in all
>>seriousness, you may be blown away just how many of those bands
>>actually do use MIDI when recording in a studio.
Bat wrote on 8/20/1999, 3:15 PM
I don't doubt many musicians record without the use of MIDI - It's
not a recording tool as much as it is a production tool and most
people use MIDI to create works beyond the ability to do with only
one person for many reasons...

While there are wonderful composers out there who write their entire
scores for movies, hardly a handful of these composers have the
ability to whip up an orchestra to play it. I would be surprised if
almost every movie out there wasn't utilizing MIDI sequencing of some
sort for their production be it musical or sound effects. While Sound
Effects I can see moving to a completely disk based architecture,
music can not. There is too much expressiveness needed to create
music of which you loose most articles of true human representative
expression when you us a linear disk based compositional tool. Your
only allies are plug-ins and those don't change the composition, just
the sound of a committed passage.

Bottom line is that IF Vegas added MIDI support, I feel it would
knock out all those studios out there using the likes of Cubase,
Cakewalk, Logic, etc... as the audio of Vegas w/the video looks and
feels great (sans the Cinepak problem I outlined on this forum) BUT
the MIDI interface would have to resemble the quality of something
like DIGITAL PERFORMER on the Mac as it is by far the most powerful
yet simple designs out there. (Ok, sure, there's some personal
wishing going on in that last statement... but everyone I've known
agrees with the clutter, mess and confusion of the other layouts of
other sequencers where as D.P. has the most logical and direct layout)

Peter


>>Hi Peter,
>>
>>AAMOF, Yes. At least three on the list have recorded at the
facility
>>where I work, and I haven't been "blown away" by anything sequenced
>>since "Switched on Bach" oh so many years ago. :)
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Willg
>>
>>Peter Stone wrote:
>>
>>>>Ok - have you talked to these people personally? While I haven't,
I
>>>>can see quite a few of them don't need MIDI anymore then a
digital
>>>>audio recording program. Tapes works just fine. But in all
>>>>seriousness, you may be blown away just how many of those bands
>>>>actually do use MIDI when recording in a studio.
wgallant wrote on 8/20/1999, 10:13 PM

Agreed. Should MIDI be ultimately integrated into Vegas, the very
fact that Vegas started life without will hopefully make a big
difference in separating it from the likes of Cubase, Cakewalk, et al.

We own Cubase, but I've gotten to point that, as solid as it has been
for audio recording, I would rather take a beating than deal with the
multitrack editing side... one reason why I've worked so hard giving
Vegas the benefit of the doubt in hopes that it will do what we want
in a commercial setting.

So far, so good... almost every issue with Vegas has been either
operator error, a lack of understanding of the program and how it
reacts with hardware, relatively minor configuration issues that have
so far responded to common sense, or issues that we feel that we can
live with until the program matures a bit.

Don't get me wrong, while MIDI in Vegas would only be a nice "option"
for my purposes, I accept that it may be a practical necessity for
others... maybe even the majority as you seem to imply. :)

Nonetheless, should your dreams come to pass I personally will still
feel a whole lot better knowing that the audio and MIDI were
integrated from the strength gained from the audio side first...
instead of the audio perched atop a legacy sequencer ported from
another platform about the time Bill Gates last parked his caah in
Harvaad yaad.

I hope we both get our wishes. I am impressed at this point and hope
things only get better.

Regards,
Willg


Peter Stone wrote:

>>
>>Bottom line is that IF Vegas added MIDI support, I feel it would
>>knock out all those studios out there using the likes of Cubase,
>>Cakewalk, Logic, etc... as the audio of Vegas w/the video looks and
>>feels great (sans the Cinepak problem I outlined on this forum) BUT
>>the MIDI interface would have to resemble the quality of something
>>like DIGITAL PERFORMER on the Mac as it is by far the most powerful
LDTOWERS wrote on 11/9/1999, 2:43 AM
I completely agree. Midi is important but its easy enough to sync
midi to a recorder. And its not just a bandwidth issue, its a
reliability issue. Even the best all in one solutions just have
hiccups every once in a while.


Brian Woodard wrote:
>>
>>
>>Peter Stone wrote:
>>>>Yes, syncing a secondary machine... I've done this with my Atari
ST
>>>>syncing Premiere on my old Quad 700 (which is in the closet now)
>>yet
>>>>I find that for song writing and development work, it's kind of a
>>>>major pain to have source on seperate machines for various
reasons.
>>
>>Having spent many years synching a drum machine to tape, synching a
>>computer to tape, synching a drum machine to a computer, this
>>configuration is quite a bit easier.
>>
>>Besides, combining MIDI and Vegas on one machine will cost you some
>>tracks in lost processor bandwidth.
>>
>>Brian Woodard
>>
LDTOWERS wrote on 11/9/1999, 2:51 AM
hear hear. I just hate pursists of any stripe!

Peter Stone wrote:
>>Will Gallant wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Reading these comments, one gets the distinct impression that
>>without
>>>>MIDI, there is no legitimacy in the music business.
>>
>>Hmmm... well, let me see... no, I never said that.
>>
>>>>Go ahead, talk MIDI to the likes of Marsalis, Coltrane, TOP,
Vaughn,
>>>>King, Monk, Manhattan Xfer, Lovett, Griffith, Neville Bros,
Little
>>>>Feat ... and other countless groovemeisters on and on, ad
infinitum.
>>
>>Ok - have you talked to these people personally? While I haven't, I
>>can see quite a few of them don't need MIDI anymore then a digital
>>audio recording program. Tapes works just fine. But in all
>>seriousness, you may be blown away just how many of those bands
>>actually do use MIDI when recording in a studio. It's very common
to
>>have various parts sequenced in one way or another be it the Drum
>>track, a secondary keyboard part, etc... I've seen it happen with
>>those "guitar" and notorious "live only" bands many times once they
>>hit the studio... Not all of them, but quite a few.
>>
>>>>
>>>>Many of us predate the "Musical Instrument Digital Interface"
when
>>>>musicians played their instruments eyeball to eyeball and prided
>>>>themselves in meeting on top of the beat and shaking hands,
without
>>>>the use of MIDI, sequencing, loops or drum machines.
>>>>Believe it, man ... there are "production companies" with
"technical
>>>>and creative teams" that cater to this old fashion concept and
have
>>a
>>>>happening and flourishing business. Without MIDI!
>>>>
>>>>Yes, even today! :)
>>
>>Yes, some production companies don't use MIDI because some
production
>>companies are not studios and are there to remix and create masters
>>from pre-existing master tapes be it on HD or DAT, 1/4" reels,
etc...
>>Any true pro company will have MIDI automation and possibly a
studio
>>wing with a full keyboard / sampler rig. These are commonly used
lay
>>on additional vocals or fix problematic drum tracks, etc...
>>
>>
>>>>Perhaps 20 years in the business is not long enough to have a
lock
>>on
>>>>the definitive "logic" of the "music .... scene"?
>>>>Willg
>>
>>
>> Hmmm.... well.... while there are those >>older then me in the scene... I'd have to say... NO!!! >> >>I've actually had the pleasure of meeting quite a few professionals in >>the scene since I first got into the electronic side of it back in 79. >>My sister worked for various production studios and so from time to >>time, I would hang out, observe... over the years I ended up at >>various studios, hanging out with the likes of Bob Moog, did the Namm >>shows, etc... and while my background was on the electronic side, I >>did observe non-electronic sessions as well... So yes, with the >>contacts I've made and the personal experience I've had... I can say >>my grasp on the 'Music Scene' /IS/ far beyond 85% of most others. >> >>I'll let you in on a little secret about those "non-MIDI" type >>bands... many a band has secretly or post had to have some of their >>parts sampled and MIDI'ed due to various /problems/... vocals have >>been manipulated post with fx, drums cut up and re-timed, melodies >>sequenced due to 'sloppy playing', etc... >> >>I'm not saying it's impossible for a non-MIDI band to cut an album... >>but in reality... unless you're a grunge/R&R band, lounge act or a >>symphony, you're going to at one time be utilizing MIDI for something >>sooner or later... hmm... actually... all of those use MIDI too >>sometimes... >> >>It's just there... a part of our lives... it won't go away... I >>remember when the MIDI II spec was put up for consideration... that >>was almost 10 years ago... our brains just don't need the extra speed >>as we can't hear and process any faster then what MIDI provides... All >>the timing issues were solved with external MIDI interfaces that offer >>multiple in/out configurations... >> >>Ok - I'm getting off topic. >> >>PS >>