I’ve always muddled by using the Pen / Line tool in MIDI CC automation (for expression / modulation etc.) which inserts loads of nasty, difficult to edit points and steps, and without careful management leads to bad sounding sudden jumps and drops in expression for MIDI instruments. I’d figured that an upgrade to C9 might sort this, as powerful automation of this sort of thing with bezier curves / splines etc. is now pretty much standard in all DAWs. But as far as I can see, the MIDI CC automation is just the same as it has been since Cubase VST :-/. Can anyone tell me if I’m wrong? Is there an option for using ramps and splines between points in MIDI CC lanes that I’m missing?
Just for clarity, I’m talking about automation of MIDI expression / modulation in the Key Editor window, not volume handles in the edit window. Recording of expression (using mod wheel / ribbons on controller keyboards) is critical on most good orchestral VSTi’s, but as it’s difficult to get the performance spot on, it’s always necessary to fine-tune it afterwards. This is particularly the case if quantizing notes - the modulation / expression control won’t change to follow the new note positions so it’s easy to end up with volume / expression glitches. I know that MIDI CC data is expressed in steps, however these steps could easily be interpolated between two points ‘smoothly’ as an option in the Key editor - the way Cubase currently seems to handle it (unless there is an option I’m missing somewhere) seems like the most un-musical way you could possibly handle expression, especially in a package that promotes its strength as a composition tool.
If you want a pattern where cc21 peaks at +63 every 1 and 3 beat, while being -63 on every 2 and 4 beat you can draw that in seconds. (Or any other cc / quantize combination)
Also note that a “bezier” (as this buzzword will follow) says nothing about where the actual relevant midi events are. The latest cc before the next note on is what counts. The rest means nothing. Learn about continuous midi controllers.
Steinberg has BY FAR the best midi implementation
No this is the kind of stuff that cubase newbs have found in other daws and request because they don’t yet master Cubase workflow. We’ve had this discussion before. People should learn the daws intended workflow rather than trying to turn Cubase into a mashup of protools, S1 and FLStudio. Feel free to work any way you like in any DAW, I couldn’t care less, but Cubase has a very distinct workflow and an own identity / vision.
I guess consistency is the key here… learn one type of way of editing automation data and it should flow through the DAW. Learning various ways of essentially doing the same thing is not conducive to an efficient workflow…