Jules
06-28-2000, 03:09 AM
Snip from another thread:
Topic: PT-midi really sucks....
Robert U
posted June 25, 2000 05:26 AM
It wasn't until recently that I disocovered how bad the Midi in PT 5.0 is, considering if you want to use it as a pro. And I consider myself a pro in Midi making a living out of it for 12 years now..We were working on an almost 100% midibased project and we had a hell of a time to get things tight and it took for ages if you wanted to do some extensive midi-programming. Our only solution was to get another mac and run Logic(WITH AMT!!!!) synced to our PT-ma.. I know there's probably some users who thinks the midi is ok and perhaps it is if you just have some tracks and you don't care so much about timing... but I have a hard time in believing that anyone with great knowledge of Logic, DP or even Cubase would consider this
as an acceptable system. I just hope that they will develop the midi-side real fast, making a their own midi-driver or buy opcode and develop OMS. So they can live up to their name PRO-tools.... Robert Uhlmann
posted June 27, 2000 06:41 AM
Ho Robert,
you're not the only one having discovered this, unfortunately I don't see PT getting serious midi very soon, so I am planning to add a second mac for Logic (midi only).
Lion
bluemt
posted June 27, 2000 08:55 AM
As someone who is giving PT5 sequencer a shot, and as someone who has not had extensive experience using another MIDI sequencing application, I'm concerned with the "timing" problems you've metioned. Please elaborate. thanks.
KymataDigital
posted June 27, 2000 01:53 PM
If MIDI timing is a concern to you, then why not get a cheap Atari ST and use that MTC'ed to Pro Tools? That's what we sometimes do here when we want tight MIDI parts. Works really well.
/paul
(How many times has Atari been mentioned on the DUC, eh? hehe)
Robert U
posted June 27, 2000 02:49 PM
bluemt- The difference is mostly the usage of different mididrivers. Logic uses a driver called AMT which reads the midiinformation before it's even played and it works parallell for each port meaning that if you send out midi on all 8 ports at the same time on a Unitor8 it plays all the notes at the same time. With PT who is using OMS it is going serial which makes it impossible to send out midi at excactly the same time on the different ports. When using for example Cubase-OMS the higher up the tracks are on the screen the more precise they will play. This is because it's reading serial starting with the first track and then going downwards. Kyamata- I agree....I remembered when I used the ATARI that the midi was really tight. But I would never go back to just a black and white screen and a very boring, tiering interface like that. For me the solution was, as I stated before, to get another mac for the midi using Logic. But it would sure be nice to have everything in PT
Robert Uhlmann
IP: Logged
KymataDigital
posted June 27, 2000 07:50 PM
If you do go the extra-Mac-for-Logic route, then get one of their MIDI interfaces with AMT (Active MIDI Timing). There's more info about AMT at Emagic's site, but it's basically a technology that sends out MIDI data out of their interfaces in parallel as opposed to serial (just like the ST MIDI ports). I've always wondered why Mac MIDI interfaces weren't PCI card + breakout-box combos instead of ones that used the serial port. Woulda solved a lot of problems regarding timing.
paul
IP: Logged
Speer
posted June 28, 2000 01:26 AM
http://www.digidesign.com/ubb/images/icons/mad.gif http://www.digidesign.com/ubb/images/icons/mad.gif What reasons do you all have for staying with Protools for audio? Why not just do everything in logic? http://www.digidesign.com/ubb/images/icons/mad.gif http://www.digidesign.com/ubb/images/icons/mad.gif
IP: Logged
stevegalante
posted June 28, 2000 01:32 AM Speer, the reason for me is ProControl. If Logic or Digital Performer could be ProControl compatible I would never use ProTools, but Digi knows it very well...
IP: Logged
Robert U
posted June 28, 2000 02:42 AM For me the reasons are:
1)My Procontrol
2) The audio and automation is so much easier to handle in PT.
Another thing is that you can't name busses, ins and outs in Logic which would be very nice if you like me have 5 interfaces
Robert Uhlmann
IP: Logged
Jules
posted June 28, 2000 02:58 AM
Me too. Are we Prisoners of Pro Control?
HELP US OUT DIGI!
If you sit on your hands regarding midi or waste time on 96k that no one really needs or wants, we will be sunk.
DP & logic boast elaborate midi timing smarts, why can't we have that too? For other PT users sure, you can call midi in PT a charmed new feature under development, for the ProControl owner it's a far more serious compatability issue. We are starting to feel worried and that we will be let down.
Jules
[This message has been edited by Jules (edited June 28, 2000).]
Topic: PT-midi really sucks....
Robert U
posted June 25, 2000 05:26 AM
It wasn't until recently that I disocovered how bad the Midi in PT 5.0 is, considering if you want to use it as a pro. And I consider myself a pro in Midi making a living out of it for 12 years now..We were working on an almost 100% midibased project and we had a hell of a time to get things tight and it took for ages if you wanted to do some extensive midi-programming. Our only solution was to get another mac and run Logic(WITH AMT!!!!) synced to our PT-ma.. I know there's probably some users who thinks the midi is ok and perhaps it is if you just have some tracks and you don't care so much about timing... but I have a hard time in believing that anyone with great knowledge of Logic, DP or even Cubase would consider this
as an acceptable system. I just hope that they will develop the midi-side real fast, making a their own midi-driver or buy opcode and develop OMS. So they can live up to their name PRO-tools.... Robert Uhlmann
posted June 27, 2000 06:41 AM
Ho Robert,
you're not the only one having discovered this, unfortunately I don't see PT getting serious midi very soon, so I am planning to add a second mac for Logic (midi only).
Lion
bluemt
posted June 27, 2000 08:55 AM
As someone who is giving PT5 sequencer a shot, and as someone who has not had extensive experience using another MIDI sequencing application, I'm concerned with the "timing" problems you've metioned. Please elaborate. thanks.
KymataDigital
posted June 27, 2000 01:53 PM
If MIDI timing is a concern to you, then why not get a cheap Atari ST and use that MTC'ed to Pro Tools? That's what we sometimes do here when we want tight MIDI parts. Works really well.
/paul
(How many times has Atari been mentioned on the DUC, eh? hehe)
Robert U
posted June 27, 2000 02:49 PM
bluemt- The difference is mostly the usage of different mididrivers. Logic uses a driver called AMT which reads the midiinformation before it's even played and it works parallell for each port meaning that if you send out midi on all 8 ports at the same time on a Unitor8 it plays all the notes at the same time. With PT who is using OMS it is going serial which makes it impossible to send out midi at excactly the same time on the different ports. When using for example Cubase-OMS the higher up the tracks are on the screen the more precise they will play. This is because it's reading serial starting with the first track and then going downwards. Kyamata- I agree....I remembered when I used the ATARI that the midi was really tight. But I would never go back to just a black and white screen and a very boring, tiering interface like that. For me the solution was, as I stated before, to get another mac for the midi using Logic. But it would sure be nice to have everything in PT
Robert Uhlmann
IP: Logged
KymataDigital
posted June 27, 2000 07:50 PM
If you do go the extra-Mac-for-Logic route, then get one of their MIDI interfaces with AMT (Active MIDI Timing). There's more info about AMT at Emagic's site, but it's basically a technology that sends out MIDI data out of their interfaces in parallel as opposed to serial (just like the ST MIDI ports). I've always wondered why Mac MIDI interfaces weren't PCI card + breakout-box combos instead of ones that used the serial port. Woulda solved a lot of problems regarding timing.
paul
IP: Logged
Speer
posted June 28, 2000 01:26 AM
http://www.digidesign.com/ubb/images/icons/mad.gif http://www.digidesign.com/ubb/images/icons/mad.gif What reasons do you all have for staying with Protools for audio? Why not just do everything in logic? http://www.digidesign.com/ubb/images/icons/mad.gif http://www.digidesign.com/ubb/images/icons/mad.gif
IP: Logged
stevegalante
posted June 28, 2000 01:32 AM Speer, the reason for me is ProControl. If Logic or Digital Performer could be ProControl compatible I would never use ProTools, but Digi knows it very well...
IP: Logged
Robert U
posted June 28, 2000 02:42 AM For me the reasons are:
1)My Procontrol
2) The audio and automation is so much easier to handle in PT.
Another thing is that you can't name busses, ins and outs in Logic which would be very nice if you like me have 5 interfaces
Robert Uhlmann
IP: Logged
Jules
posted June 28, 2000 02:58 AM
Me too. Are we Prisoners of Pro Control?
HELP US OUT DIGI!
If you sit on your hands regarding midi or waste time on 96k that no one really needs or wants, we will be sunk.
DP & logic boast elaborate midi timing smarts, why can't we have that too? For other PT users sure, you can call midi in PT a charmed new feature under development, for the ProControl owner it's a far more serious compatability issue. We are starting to feel worried and that we will be let down.
Jules
[This message has been edited by Jules (edited June 28, 2000).]