need advice on creating notes using logical editor

Cubase
#1

I’m trying to write a function in the logical editor, but running into 2 roadblocks.

What I want to accomplish for every midi note:

  1. Duplicate the original note one octave HIGHER
  2. Duplicate the original note one octave LOWER
  3. MUTE all three notes

Issue 1
Looking at the attached patch:
C6 logical editor.JPG
As is, the patch doesn’t work, but I’m trying to get it to do the first 2 steps above.
If the line subtracting 12 were deleted, the patch would create a second note one octave higher. Exactly what I want for step 1. If the subtraction line is included, one new note is created and not two like I want. And that new note is at the same pitch as the initial note - since note# + 12 -12 = note#.

I know folks use the editor to create chords, so the ability to generate multiple new notes exists. But I can’t figure out how.

Issue 2
I can’t find a mechanism to SET a note’s property to be “muted.” It is easy enough to SELECT muted notes in the filter section of the editor and then do stuff to them. But changing note properties to be muted seems impossible.

#2

This can be done with a Macro using Logical Editor Presets and Key Commands. The starting note has to be selected to begin with. You need to create the LE presets. Attatchments are the LE presets. You then need to add two Select Previous KC’s to select the other notes and finally Mute.
Add Octive Below.JPG
Add Octive Above.JPG

#3

Oh, the Add Above has to be the first command. For some reason the upload switched the order.

#4

Also, you can edit the logical edit and macro in this post:
http://www.steinberg.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2576&hilit=+chords#p16991

#5

Thanks. I had considered generating the notes in 2 passes. But since I was applying it to every note, the 2nd pass would have the unwanted effect of creating a duplicate of the original note. But you based it on the note(s) being selected which overcomes that.

#6

raino, are you interested only in Logical-Editor-based methods of achieving the result?

#7

Oh, not at all. It just seemed like the best tool to use. But…

#8