Multitimbral AU instruments in the Environment

Hi all,

In order to have more flexibility in channel positions and display, I prefer using a mixer layer in the Environment rather than the Logic "Mixer" window. For multitimbral, multioutput instruments (Kontakt and VEP) I'm using a multi-instrument object which is connected in the Environement to the software instrument object, which in turn creates its own Aux objects for audio. Nothing revolutionary here. This helps me separate MIDI and audio and have less crashes caused by track deletion in the Arrange window.

However, now I would like to automate one of the parameters of an audio plugin (VEP, for instance). I can only do that if the track in the Arrange is assigned to the software instrument object itself, not the multi-instrument object. But if I try to do that, I get very weird results when adding new tracks with different MIDI channels (Cmd+Opt+M): I get multiple audio objects in the Environment (not in the Mixer window), each for every MIDI channel, but they all carry the same audio signal. Moreover, I can't set their audio source (in the Environment) to an arbitrary output of the plugin, because it's not an Aux object. The point of having identical objects in the Environment escapes me.

Why is that, and is there a better way to handle this?

Thanks.

The point of having identical objects in the Environment escapes me.

 

Why is that, and is there a better way to handle this?

Don't fret about the additional objects. Just Logic's way of keeping itself organized.

I can't comment on VEP, but with Kontakt, host automation points are freely assignable. So you can automate whatever you've assigned to whatever instrument in your multi, regardless of what channel the track is assigned. Host automation doesn't care about MIDI channel.

Using Kontakt with your multi-instrument object method, you'd assign MIDI automation in Kontakt to accomplish the same thing. But channel becomes important again.

VEP must have some similar utility?

I believe VEP currently does not support MIDI automation of its plugin parameters.

As to the "multiple objects for the same plugin" mess in the Logic environment, I'd be happy to hear a technical explanation of this. It seems to be a completely useless mechanism from a power-user's perspective: I've disabled "auto handling" of channel strips because I got constant crashes when adding, duplicating and deleting arrange tracks which had complex setups on them (16-output Kontakt instances feeding Aux channels). I therefore use the Environment mixer which is perfectly fine (though colorless...)

The reason I have to live with extraneous channel strips still escapes me. Am I supposed to create a Environment layer called "useless objects created by version 9 of a 20-year old DAW" in order to move them out of the way? Or am I supposed work with a static template and never create new tracks when I need them?

Thanks for your help.

I believe VEP currently does not support MIDI automation of its plugin parameters.

Then surely it must have host automation support for all the parameters of all its instruments in a multi?

As to the "multiple objects for the same plugin" mess in the Logic environment, I'd be happy to hear a technical explanation of this. It seems to be a completely useless mechanism from a power-user's perspective:

The inst channel strip is an object. When you target that object with a track, which is just a container for MIDI and automation, data flows from the track to the channel strip. When you create multi-timbral instrument tracks, 16 copies of the same inst object get created, but each copy is a little different in that its MIDI channel assignment is unique. In all other respects they are just an alias of each other. Change a fader value or insert a plug-in and they all reflect that change because it really is the same audio object. The MIDI channel distinction only exists to channelize any data on the track to the MIDI channel that copied object has. So the copy only serves that purpose, but it's a necessary one because you want anything you sequence on the Inst 1, MIDI ch 3 track to be received only by the part in your multi that's set to trigger with ch 3.

I've disabled "auto handling" of channel strips because I got constant crashes when adding, duplicating and deleting arrange tracks which had complex setups on them (16-output Kontakt instances feeding Aux channels). I therefore use the Environment mixer which is perfectly fine (though colorless...)

I can't speculate how a project would crash this way, but there's nothing you're doing that would necessitate using the environment mixer layer as your mixer interface. It's not very practical if your doing multi-timbral instrument tracks.

The reason I have to live with extraneous channel strips still escapes me. Am I supposed to create a Environment layer called "useless objects created by version 9 of a 20-year old DAW" in order to move them out of the way? Or am I supposed work with a static template and never create new tracks when I need them?

Most folks who use the environment mixer create a layer for just the channel objects they need. Leave the "mixer" layer alone and let Logic do its thing with it. Or easier, just use the Mixer window.

Thank you for your description of Logic's handling of instrument channels. I was aware of the way it was working — it was essentially the reason I wrote the post in the first place. Instantiating a clone of a mixer channel, with a duplicate VU meter, in order to channelize a MIDI message is a very, very cumbersome and annoying solution IMHO.

I agree that the Environment mixer is not very practical, period. However, I prefer that to a Mixer window where I can't choose the channel order from left to right (unless they reflect the Arrange window, which isn't a solution for me). Choosing which audio signal goes into which channel (and therefore laying out large mixes easily) is something every engineer was able to do on an analog console running 2" tape machines thirty years ago.

I'm still looking for a DAW which handles multi-channel, multi-output instruments well. It's amazing that even Reaper, with its unified MIDI/audio track layout, hasn't really solved that problem.

BTW, this is not a rant... I'm honestly looking for a simple solution to a simple problem, and I'm amazing that none of the big names (Logic, DP, Cubase, ProTools...) has come up with one.

I'm still looking for a DAW which handles multi-channel, multi-output instruments well. It's amazing that even Reaper, with its unified MIDI/audio track layout, hasn't really solved that problem.

I think the concept of multitimbral instruments is a relict from hardware sound modules not appropriate to modern DAWs since the DAW by itself is multitimbral. Having multitimbral instruments as sub-modules doesn't add any functionality but just another level of complexity. So it's somewhat incompatible with the goals of clean design.

I feel that the way Logic handles multi-timbral instruments to be one its major shortcomings in terms of workflow. I am using an Apogee Symphony 32 system, and I figured out a way using the virtual I/O from the V-bus protocol to "fool" logic into thinking that a multi-timbral instrument is running outside of logic, like a hardware synth. If you dont have a Symphony rig, I think you can still do it with something like Jack OSX, though haven't tried. Here's the link:

http://www.logicprohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=63101

I basically combined the functions of the V-bus virtual I/O, a multi-instrument object, and the Logic External instrument to make software instrument tracks that all point back to an original multi-timbral VI. it works, it's stable, and most importantly, even thought the individual tracks all refer to the same instrument, they can all be treat like they are individual instrument tracks. Other solutions have been provided, but they don't offer the same flexibility as this solution.

As for the mixer, I use Arrange view, along with creative track grouping and the hide tracks button to manage the order in which the tracks appear.

Scotty,

You come into problems cause you try to combine two ways of Multi-timbral instrument usage reading your post.

I'm using a multi-instrument object which is connected in the Environement to the software instrument object,

This is the "Old way" using a Multi Instrument in the Environment set to "No Port" and cabled to the Software Instr. instance.

Note: If want to use this way just set the Software Instr. Channel strip to ch.All !

Do not create "New Tracks with next midi channel" cause you combine the "New way" which creates new channel strips in the Environment. Just create midi tracks for the Multi Instrument object in the Arrange.

But if I try to do that, I get very weird results when adding new tracks with different MIDI channels (Cmd+Opt+M): I get multiple audio objects in the Environment (not in the Mixer window), each for every MIDI channel, but they all carry the same audio signal.

Here you combine the "New Way" and come into problem you do not want right ?

As a whole use one method. For example:

If still want to use a Multi Instrument cabled to the Software instrument (set to ch.All) then you will have say 16 tracks in the Arrange for that Multi and one track for the Software Instrument. In this scenario you can record the midi notes etc. using the Multi midi tracks in the Arrange and in the same time you can record Host Automation using the Software Instrument track - just switch it to Latch, run Logic and tweak any parameter of the Software Instrument plugin, after that switch it to "Read" etc.

The "Old" method will keep your Environment Mixer "Clean" - just one Software Instr. channel set to "ch.All" !

If you want to use the Logic "Midi" Track Mixer to control some parameters of the plugin without opening its interface each time or record Automation on the "Multi" midi tracks using their "Latch, Read etc" then you will need some Environment transformers patched between the Multi and the Software Instr. Have a look at the Attachment Video below where I use Sample Tank (ST) for the demo. It is just a demo but I still recommend the method of recording the Automation on the Software Instr. track I was talking about previously.

Regards,

Vacheto

st_demo_ctrl.zip

[EDIT: Scotty, I think the answers to my questions to you have been answered in subsequent posts.]

Instantiating a clone of a mixer channel, with a duplicate VU meter, in order to channelize a MIDI message is a very, very cumbersome and annoying solution IMHO.

Scotty,

I've been following this thread with interest but I'm not clear on something... what do you mean when you say "clone of mixer channels"? Are you talking about having lots of Auxes (as returns for individual instrument outputs from a m/t instrument plug), or, are you referring to the idea of hosting individual instruments (1 sound each) in individual instrument channels because it's less complex to work that way? I ask because other than the latter situation I can't see a reason to duplicate instrument or mixer channels. Would you mind breaking down what you mean by "clone mixer channels"?

I agree that the Environment mixer is not very practical, period. However, I prefer that to a Mixer window where I can't choose the channel order from left to right (unless they reflect the Arrange window, which isn't a solution for me).

Yes, this is exactly where the Environment mixer comes in handy. It's not clear to me, though, that you understand the difference between the environment mixer and the Mixer page. Apologies in advance if you do know this already, but... The channels you see in the Environment mixer layer (as it's called) and those you see in the Mixer are exactly the same things. For example, the "Audio 1" channel strip you see in the Mixer page IS the "Audio 1" channel strip you see in the Environment. They're not two separate objects.

The origin of that channel strip (and instruments, auxes, etc.) is the Environment. The Mixer page is just another "view" of those objects, with some built-in display and functional conveniences (e.g, easily copying plugins between channels) but not without limitation (such as channel re-ordering). FWIW, the Mixer has never been my favorite page. I use the Environment mixer layer almost exclusively.

And of course, in the Environment you can re-order the channel strips to give you the visual display you want (a la cross-patching tape outputs to lay out channels on a board in the desired order). You can also utilize various environment processes to do all kinds of nifty stuff like linking channel mutes, solos, and a billion other useful things. While that might be worth mentioning, it's really OT for this thread so I'll stop there.

Instantiating a clone of a mixer channel, with a duplicate VU meter, in order to channelize a MIDI message is a very, very cumbersome and annoying solution IMHO.

 

Scotty,

 

I've been following this thread with interest but I'm not clear on something... what do you mean when you say "clone of mixer channels"? Are you talking about having lots of Auxes (as returns for individual instrument outputs from a m/t instrument plug), or, are you referring to the idea of hosting individual instruments (1 sound each) in individual instrument channels because it's less complex to work that way? I ask because other than the latter situation I can't see a reason to duplicate instrument or mixer channels. Would you mind breaking down what you mean by "clone mixer channels"?

 

I agree that the Environment mixer is not very practical, period. However, I prefer that to a Mixer window where I can't choose the channel order from left to right (unless they reflect the Arrange window, which isn't a solution for me).

 

Yes, this is exactly where the Environment mixer comes in handy. It's not clear to me, though, that you understand the difference between the environment mixer and the Mixer page. Apologies in advance if you do know this already, but... The channels you see in the Environment mixer layer (as it's called) and those you see in the Mixer are exactly the same things. For example, the "Audio 1" channel strip you see in the Mixer page IS the "Audio 1" channel strip you see in the Environment. They're not two separate objects.

 

The origin of that channel strip (and instruments, auxes, etc.) is the Environment. The Mixer page is just another "view" of those objects, with some built-in display and functional conveniences (e.g, easily copying plugins between channels) but not without limitation (such as channel re-ordering). FWIW, the Mixer has never been my favorite page. I use the Environment mixer layer almost exclusively.

 

And of course, in the Environment you can re-order the channel strips to give you the visual display you want (a la cross-patching tape outputs to lay out channels on a board in the desired order). You can also utilize various environment processes to do all kinds of nifty stuff like linking channel mutes, solos, and a billion other useful things. While that might be worth mentioning, it's really OT for this thread so I'll stop there.

Ski, I suspect he means that when you do it the "new way", you get a lot of graphical representations of the same Channel Strip but each one representing a different MIDI channel stacked on top of each other in an Environment LAyer.

It is a big gripe of mine also as I like to keep my Environment layers tidy for using them to mix sometimes.

Ski, I suspect he means that when you do it the "new way", you get a lot of graphical representations of the same Channel Strip but each one representing a different MIDI channel stacked on top of each other in an Environment LAyer.

Other than the occasional graphics glitch where environment objects bunch up on top of one another (which takes about 1,5 seconds to fix) I've never seen such stacking, hence my query.

Scotty,

In my previous post I accented about your issue that you combine the "New" and the "Old" way of using the Multi - timbral Instruments where I gave an example with the "Old" way using a Multi Instrument object in the Environment.

I miss to mention about one more issue (which J.Asher just pointed) about the "New" way.

Let's say that in the "New" way we can create Multi-timbral tracks using few methods like:

1. By "New Tracks" menu where you just set the number of the Software Instrument channels you want and tick the "Multi Timbral" box to the right.

2. By the keycommand "New Track with next midi channel"

(This methods do not require to create a Multi in the Environment like the "Old way".

As far as I remember there is a "Bug" using the second method above - i.e the command "New Track with next midi channel" method which overlaps the newly created Channel Strip objects in the Environment layer they are created.

This first method - "New Tracks" menu works as expected - not overlapping !

Regards,

Vacheto

I just tried the "new track with next MIDI channel". Never used that before, so that explains why I've never seen the stacking you guys are referring to.

Anyway, it's a nightmare! But how useful is this for a multi-timbral plug anyway? Controller info (like CC#7 or CC#10) recorded on any one channel affects all of the other "clone" channels. Actually, it's not shocking at all, it's the behavior I'd expect. Even if you route various individual sounds to Auxes, forget about usinc CC#7 on multiple channels. I guess if you're not using CC#7 this could be useful but... [insert intense skeptical vibe here].

I just tried the "new track with next MIDI channel". Never used that before, so that explains why I've never seen the stacking you guys are referring to.

 

Anyway, it's a nightmare! But how useful is this for a multi-timbral plug anyway? Controller info (like CC#7 or CC#10) recorded on any one channel affects all of the other "clone" channels. Actually, it's not shocking at all, it's the behavior I'd expect. Even if you route various individual sounds to Auxes, forget about usinc CC#7 on multiple channels. I guess if you're not using CC#7 this could be useful but... [insert intense skeptical vibe here].

Believe it or not, some people do automate things other than cc7 and panning

Believe it or not, some people do automate things other than cc7 and panning

And your point is...?

Controller info (like CC#7 or CC#10) recorded on any one channel affects all of the other "clone" channels.

So of COURSE we're not just talking about panning and volume. What about muting or soloing tracks? Sends? C'mon Jay...

Addendum: try creating just two tracks and then hit Solo on one of those channel strips. Both solo. Then un-solo that first channel strip repeatedly. See how the solo's toggle? Bad news.

My point is that this just doesn't seem a very viable way to work. YMMV, yadda yadda...

I'm curious if anyone here with an Apogee Symphony or using Jack OSX is willing to give the method I described a shot.

I have X number of Instrument Tracks for each X number of channels/outputs in my multi-timbral VI. The difference is, that each one is an independent instrument track, not a duplicate of the original assigned to a different midi channel.

I guess there are not enough Jack OSX users (or Apogee Symphony or soundflower) out there...

Addendum: try creating just two tracks and then hit Solo on one of those channel strips. Both solo. Then un-solo that first channel strip repeatedly. See how the solo's toggle? Bad news.

Plus you can not make any midi processing tricks like you do with the "Old" way patching this gear between the Multi and the A.I, plus you can not use a "Patch List" PC if want to recall patches directly from the track PC box if work with banks etc... The "new" way seems to be another unsuccessful gift for the people who are scared from the environment cables.

+1

Believe it or not, some people do automate things other than cc7 and panning

 

And your point is...?

 

Controller info (like CC#7 or CC#10) recorded on any one channel affects all of the other "clone" channels.

 

So of COURSE we're not just talking about panning and volume. What about muting or soloing tracks? Sends? C'mon Jay...

 

Addendum: try creating just two tracks and then hit Solo on one of those channel strips. Both solo. Then un-solo that first channel strip repeatedly. See how the solo's toggle? Bad news.

 

My point is that this just doesn't seem a very viable way to work. YMMV, yadda yadda...

First of all, folks, I am somewhat yanking my good friend Ski's leash.

That said, the "new" multi-timbral creation is useful for some things, not for others, but since by and large the developers think multi-timbral is a dated workflow, I am not optimistic about this improving.

Ski, re: the Addendum. are you aware that if you go into your Audio Prefs and change it fom Fast Remote to CPU Saving then you CAN solo MIDI channels discretely because it then becomes track based rather than Channel Strip based?

Jay,

http://www.score2picture.com/L9pix/dog.jpg

Ski, re: the Addendum. are you aware that if you go into your Audio Prefs and change it fom Fast Remote to CPU Saving then you CAN solo MIDI channels discretely because it then becomes track based rather than Channel Strip based?

Yes, thank you. And now that you mention this, I wonder if that has any effect on the toggling-solo thing I saw. Will play around with it and see.

Now, I found the following picture on the 'net subtitled exactly as shown and just can't resist posting it for the Logic devs as to the current state of multi-timbral instrument programming.

go into your Audio Prefs and change it fom Fast Remote to CPU Saving then you CAN solo MIDI channels discretely because it then becomes track based rather than Channel Strip based?

That's right Jay, though it seems to be more relative to solo "S" command regarding the yellow rectangle around the regions if you noted carefully in "CPU saving mode" - which seems to be a programing update trick... So, in "Fast" mode you can do the similar business just by hitting "S" and Shift clicking the tracks you want to solo. Anyway all that does not improve the "New" way anyhow...

Woah... I was away for a couple of hours only

@Scandor: Sorry, but I didn't understand a whole lot of what you wrote... I think I know *what* is happening in every scenario, as well as *how* to get around it and make it work. I just can't believe it can be so convoluted and that a simpler solution does not exist.

@ski: When I say "clones of mixer channels" I mean multiple software instrument objects which get created in the Environment when you use Cmd-Opt-M to create a track with the next MIDI channel in the Arrange window. All of them share the same VU meter, inserts, etc (change one and all others change). See paragraph 2 of fader8's reply above. I am not duplicating them myself, and this hasn't anything to do with Aux channels (which I use regularly, like everyone, to get audio from multitimbral instruments).

@ski: No need to apologize, but I know of course that the channels are the same objects... I've been using Logic Audio Platinum when it was still an emagic program. It's just that I've been away from it for a long time and now, coming back to it, I'm amazed to see what is to me a glaring workflow issue for a modern DAW. All the things you mention as being wonderful in the Environment Mixer layer are indeed very valuable to me and are the reason I generally stay away from the Mixer window.

@Fred B: You have a point with the concept of multitimbral instruments being a bit old now. I'd be happy to be able to create one software instrument per instrument, with a single Kontakt instance on it, and then repeat it for all the instruments I use. However, I don't think Kontakt is optimized, memory-wise, to be used that way.

@Ashermusic: I couldn't have put it better... This is what I was trying to explain. BTW, "Going Pro with Logic 9" should arrive by mail any day now. It had better propose a neat solution to this.

Thanks to all for replying. Everything is *still* a big mess here. I was hoping Reaper would solve this but this particular issue is still "work in progress" (and they are approaching version 4). Ideally — or I should say IMHO — we should have something like this:

- A preference such as "Enable Advanced Mode for audio & MIDI routing". Assume pro and semipro users can handle things such as audio & MIDI feedback like adults.

- Instrument plugin no longer get inserted into a channel, but into a virtual rack or something, à la Cubase.

- Each MIDI track in the Arrange has a MIDI destination setting (plugin "slot" + MIDI channel) and an Audio In setting (in which every loaded plugin "slot" and each available output [Kontakt 1-2, 3-4...] is listed).

- Use this single track for containing MIDI in the Arrange *and* playing back audio from the selected source.

- Leave sends and inserts as they are, which shouldn't be too difficult.

- Leave audio tracks as they are.

Could someone please explain if the above is either (1) pathetically flawed or (2) impossible given the current state of technology.

Thanks.

That said, the "new" multi-timbral creation is useful for some things, not for others, but since by and large the developers think multi-timbral is a dated workflow, I am not optimistic about this improving.

Neither am I, and I agree with you. But that's not going to keep developers from making the plug-ins. But those guys need to step up to the plate too. Any multi-timbral plug-in that doesn't allow you to choose and configure any CC you like for volume, pan, or otherwise is missing the boat. Freely assignable MIDI control is fundamental, not optional.

IMHO — we should have something like this:

 

snip...

 

- Instrument plugin no longer get inserted into a channel, but into a virtual rack or something,

Yes, an audio object that is just a host for the plug-in, having 16 MIDI channels it can receive and as many outputs as it wants.

- Each MIDI track in the Arrange has a MIDI destination setting (plugin "slot" + MIDI channel) and an Audio In setting (in which every loaded plugin "slot" and each available output [Kontakt 1-2, 3-4...] is listed).

And if the track points its MIDI at that instrument plug-in, that track should have full host automation access to the plug-in.

This would essentially negate the "Aux" as it's used for the instruments now. Which is good, since it's not really an aux anymore when it's handling an instrument output anyway. PDC is even handled differently.

Interestingly, what you're describing is similar to an instrument channel strip that has the external instrument plug-in invoked. But the instrument wouldn't be external.

Thanks for the input, fader8. I really don't think what I'm describing is such a far-fetched idea — surely someone has thought before of having a single track handle both the MIDI data and the audio output, from *any* available bus? This indeed negates the need to have auxes for instrument audio channels, but it does not *prevent* the user from assigning the track's audio input signal to an aux's output — imagine a MIDI track sending MIDI to a plugin "slot" and having its own audio input set to "Aux 1". Then have "Aux 1" get its input from plugin "slot" output 1-2, running several inserts, feeding some other bus via a send, and output everything to the original MIDI track's audio input. I've seen so many incredible DAW-related things in the last ten years (OSC, Melodyne, native ProTools, affordable motorized faders...) that I can't imagine the above being so difficult to implement. Is it a AU limitation?

BTW, I don't get the "new" vs "old" multitimbral method — what do these mean? I must've missed something.

BTW, I don't get the "new" vs "old" multitimbral method — what do these mean? I must've missed something.

Surely,

1. The "Old" way is when you create a Multi Instrument object in the Environment (which port is set to OFF) and the Multi is cabled to the Software Instrument (Audio Instrument) where the Multi-Timbral plugin instrument is inserted. Both, the Multi Instrument and the Software Instrument are set to "Ch.All" ! You create midi tracks for the Multi Instrument object in the Arrange and record/draw midi notes CC# etc using different midi tracks i.e midi channels so they trigger midi events in the Software Instrument which receives the all midi channels.

In the "Old" way you will have just one Software Instrument (Audio Instrument) track in the Arrange. You can select it and create Host Automation (Track Automation) for the plugin parameters (for any multi-timbral instrument channel) using Latch, Touch etc modes.

2. In the "New" way you must not have to create a Multi Instrument in the Environment etc.

For instance, you can use the "New Tracks" dialog and set the number of the midi channels you need in the "Number" box and tick the "Multi-Timbral" box to the right of that dialog. The same thing is the command "New Tracks with next midi channel" but it overlaps the newly created objects in the Environment layer - keep in mind, so the "New Tracks" dialog is recommended !

Using the "New" way Logic creates something like Audio Instrument (A.I) aliases which use the same audio output of the instrument but the midi IN of each alias is set to different midi channel which splits the midi channels to the internal Multi-Timbral plugin instruments.

Here you record/draw midi events on the different "alias" A.I midi tracks in the Arrange etc.

Just follow all the posts in this topic and you will get enough what is the difference between both ways.

Interestingly, what you're describing is similar to an instrument channel strip that has the external instrument plug-in invoked. But the instrument wouldn't be external.

Just wanted to mention that this concept is actually implemented in Ableton Live: the multitimbral plugin resides on some track but it can be accessed from other tracks like an external instrument, i.e. sending individual midi channels and receiving individual audio channels. This is based on the flexible midi/audio routing scheme of Live.

OMG, thank you Fred B. I've searched for a quick demo of what you mentioned, and found this YouTube video. This implementation is indeed almost exactly what I was describing earlier.

So, obviously, totally off-(my own)-topic and off-forum: does anyone know of a good description of Ableton Live as used for MIDI orchestration? I've never considered that application because I thought it was mainly good for electro beats and loops, not for timeline-oriented compositions. But maybe I'm wrong?

Anyway, thanks again Fred B for pointing me in this direction. This seems to be a MIDI/audio integration which is even better than Reaper's. I'll try and have a closer look in the coming days...

I've never considered that application because I thought it was mainly good for electro beats and loops, not for timeline-oriented compositions. But maybe I'm wrong?

Conventional linear composition can be done in 'Arrangement View' but MIDI editing and automation is somewhat limited compared to DAWs like Logic. Just play around with the demo and see if it fits your needs.

I just have. Looked around the reference manual as well. Indeed this is quite limited compared to what I'm used to be able to do in Logic. It's a shame, really, because the routing implementation is extremely clear and simple, the best I've seen so far: "take audio from there", "send MIDI to here", a joy.

If only people who use Logic daily could somehow get together and spend a week with those devs at Apple... Oh well.

Thanks again Fred B.

I just have. Looked around the reference manual as well. Indeed this is quite limited compared to what I'm used to be able to do in Logic. It's a shame, really, because the routing implementation is extremely clear and simple, the best I've seen so far: "take audio from there", "send MIDI to here", a joy.

 

If only people who use Logic daily could somehow get together and spend a week with those devs at Apple... Oh well.

 

Thanks again Fred B.

This has been done by groups of pros a number of times. It has lead to the implementation of many things they have been shone, but not others.

This has been done by groups of pros a number of times.

That's good to know. But things are moving so fast in this industry that maybe this should be done more often. It can even be done online, in this forum for example, with a detailed questionnaire or something. It would cost Apple almost nothing to do the research.

BTW, your book has just landed on my desk. I guess I'll stay with Logic a while longer...