Just to understand better: Why do midi tracks not follow "Tapemachine style" concerning monitoring

agreed, but the midi record modes take care of all that - and the existing monitoring functions work fine for that scenario.

Enabling tape machine mode for midi tracks breaks nothing and removes no functionality at all- it just means, for that one specific mode, that the midi monitoring will be …well…tape machine style…which is useful.

At the moment that setting is ignored for midi tracks - but no reason for that, that I can see - that’s the thing that is removing functionality …enabling it adds more options not less.

The only people using tape-machine style are those who need/understand it - which isn’t the ‘beat maker’ types.

1 Like

These days mostly manual - but sometimes I flip to tape-machine mode

so what do you lose if MIDI honours the tape machine mode - you still have all the other modes ?

1 Like

You’re starting to convince me :grinning:

1 Like

I know - when this was posted I didn’t see the problem - but I normally just record my own midi ,

When I record vocalists I use tape machine mode all the time. But If that person wanted to record midi piano I’d have a lot more trouble doing dropins without tapemachine style.

People generally don’t want to hear the previous take AND the live take just before they drop in.

In this case MIDI=audio - shouldn’t be a difference…just my opinion obvs

1 Like

You don’t use midi replace mode?

yes - but it’s the preroll before dropping in that’s the problem - it’s the monitor mode NOT the recording mode.

If you ‘play along’ with the existing track BEFORE hitting record then you hear yourself and the previous recorded track…which you may want but often you don’t

Depending on how old you are (I’m ancient) you want to hear the recorded track - and play along with it without hearing yourself (like miming) then on RECORD it goes live. It also goes live on STOP - that’s ‘tape machine’ style monitoring.

This is the standard way to do any analog recording ? but seemingly not MIDI

annoying, because now it’s a feature I want :smiley: - I blame @Elien for pointing it out - although recently switching over to tape machine mode I had noticed that MIDI was inconsistent.

1 Like

My first (paid) recording session was in 1976, and its been downhill from there :roll_of_toilet_paper:

Hm… I see what you’re saying. For me as a performer, I do want to hear everything when I’m punching in, my playing and the track. I suppose there’s an FR in there… to each their own, horses for courses, etc…

2 Likes

I agree re: horses for courses, but the current situation doesn’t allow it - only on audio tracks- so yes, probably a feature request. It probably matters less for piano but imagine it on (midi) v-drums - it’s pretty distracting having two tracks going at once - with slightly different fills.

Looping back to the original question…My new answer is: I actually don’t know why MIDI doesn’t follow ‘tapemachine style’ monitoring. It’s inconsistent and it should :smiley:

and at least you got paid !! :smiley:

2 Likes

My first paid recording session was in 1979, but I did the paying :grimacing:

1 Like

Hey Guys, thank you for all your contributions and considerations!

Personally i think t that allowing tapemachine style for midi to behave like it does for audio (it could be an option to “link” the two) would not destroy any workflow but just enrich the monitoring thing.
On a more general level: It would conceptiually make sense to let things behave equally where they ARE equal while at the same time let alive the differences. In a class hierarchy both are just “signals” (or name them whatever you like) and they could behave equally. At the same time they could show different behaviour on their individual levels (audio, midi, automation, etc.).
To illustrate: Routing in Cubase could be the same for all types of “signals”, which it is not today and one might ask “why is this?” (“why” meaning “For what purpose”).
A great discussion here! Thank you all!
Ernst

PS.: it is interresting to observe that the monitor button on midi tracks is not accessible in some remote controllers (e.g. on some EUCON devices as far as I can see)

2 Likes

HI steve,
I fully agree that while recording I sometimes want to hear both - what is already there and what just record. This is not directly possible with audio in cubase and it would be great to include that option also for Audio :). Here something is possible with Midi today which is (Inconsistently) not possible with audio (for implementation reasons).
My point generally is that on a certain level of abstractions things that are the same should allow the same operations/actions and at the same time the differences should be kept and supported. This is possible - always. I tried to explain this concept in another posting.
Cheers, Ernst

I have limited experience with external controllers that use Cubase extensions. And I’ve long given up on the Mackie protocols.

But in the Generic Remote it can be mapped to any controller via
Command > Edit > Monitor

Hi Nico, yes, you are right imho :). Still the arguments about audio vs. midi are implemenational and not conceptual imho. What I am trying to say is: If computers would have been able to process audio fast enough back when the design of cubase was decided we would today have an option to hear the recorded audio along with the new input. There is no need to merge the “lanes” but just sum them while outputting. As a result all this would lead to a situation where audio allows the same as midi does today, just because they are conceptually equal on a certain level of abstraction (they are both “signals”). We are limited artificially by emphasizing the differences and not taking benefits from the aspects where they are the same. Routing is an excellent example.

So for you sheet music is conceptually the same as a finished recording and only an implementation difference?

No, this is not the way I would see it, because sheet music is no signal.

What audio and midi have in common to me on a conceptual level in the recording context is that we try to store (and process) both on whatever type of media. And we want to play back both - This is the conceptual level. Implementational “recording”, “mixing”, “playing back” are different, but conceptually they are not (otherwise the terms would not even exist in both worlds). The metaconcept I am referring to is “class hierarchies” (as in object oriented programming for example).

btw: Having said that means that on some level of abstraction we would be able to identify conceptual equlity for sheet music, midi and audio as well, but this abstraction might be less helpful (would be interresting to dig deeper into this; when we look at midi, audio as decomposed for variaudio or blobs in Melodyne and articulations, etc we would most likely discover a lot of benefitial use of similiarities/equalities).

Hi you, yes thank you - I discovered this already. I used to do a lot with generic remote and I am still using it as well.

Btw.: Nice to meet other “old guys” here :).

1 Like

Exactly! And midi is machine readable sheet music :slight_smile:

p.s. Come to think of it, the roll of a player-piano is a precursor of midi in being machine readable sheet music - and thus became a brilliantly fitting UI metaphor for the midi editor.

Oh yes, - so we can conclude:
Midi and Audio (and Automation Data and more…) are signals.
Midi is Machine readable sheetmusic. (and sheetmusic is machine readable per se). This is due to the fact that both are a “representation” of music. If we dig deeper into that we will find that recorded audio is also not “the music” but only a “representation” of the music. Whereever we start (Sheet music, Midi, Audiofiles) we need something that “processes” the input (Sheet Music, Midi, Audiofiles) in order to transform it to an output. All of the “representations” can be manipulated (we experience that more and more algorithms become available to do that for audio up) and the “music” only is “final” when it has reached the air (or even our ears or brain).
The nice thing is that as things evolve and mature, the “reverse” operation also became possible (create midi from audio, create sheet music from midi, create sheet music from audio). And the “processing” (forward transformation) that always “adds” something to what the representation contains (a human player adds somehting, an audio playback device-chain adds something, etc. etc.) which makes the reverse operation hard. Introducing “humanize” functions in the foreward processing was a step to simulate the adding of information to the represetnation while processing it.

Hm… nice. What can we see? Identifying class hierarchies (there can be more than one for a single object) can help to identify useful simliarities and use them. At the same time the differences should always be maintained - on the right level of abstraction.

You convinced me. Sheet Music (and even more its digital representation) is also a signal (or should we say “information”).

So. well… what I would love to see is that the similarities of midi and audio AND the differences of the two of them are both “used” in a DAW. Plus: Implementational (technical) and conceptual views should be separated. Result: Both sides will benefit. Just as an example: If things were as I said we would be able to have all the “midi recording modes” logically implemented for audio as well and vice versa. We would have all the routing options available as well in both worlds.
Wouldn’t that be a great source for creativity? :slight_smile:

1 Like

Hi you, btw. NONE of the “monitor” options affects midi tracks - as a result there is only the “manual” option available for midi tracks. It makes sense to me to not lock the two things permanently, but it would be great to have the option to treat midi monitoring exactly the same as audio monitoring.
And… it would be great to allow simultanuous playback and input monitoring for audio tracks as well. I think it is only an “old” decision to not allow it in the past. I experience recording situations of both kinds - sometimes not wanting to hear what has already been recorded, sometimes wanting to hear what has already been recorded…
I know, it is possible by creating additional tracks - so why not make it possible to hear multiple lanes at once.