Looper's Delight Archive Top (Search)
Date Index
Thread Index
Author Index
Looper's Delight Home
Mailing List Info

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: thinking about moving from rack to laptop...advice please!




> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Jeff Larson <jeff.larson@sailpoint.com> 
>wrote:
>> I haven't had a chance to study this in detail but it appears that
>> Mainstage requires that anything the plugin wants to have controlled by 
>the
>> user has to be exposed as an AU parameter (or whatever the equivalent 
>of a
>> VST parameter is in AU, I forget).  Beyond parameters there are 
>apparently
>> "actions" as well; one-shot commands that don't have a range of
>> values.
>>
>> It's more like VST parameter automation in a DAW, the plugin never
>> gets MIDI directly.  This is kind of annoying for complex plugins
>> (like say multi-track loopers) because you have to expose a bajillion
>> AU parameters and actions to make the most of Mainstage.  This is all
>> redundant if the plugin also needs to respond to MIDI for the
>> "primitive" hosts like Bidule.
> 
> 
Per Boysen wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> I just have to comment here to set the record straight ;-)
> 
> Bidule uses a similar system as Mainstage. You can check it out in
> Bidule by clicking at "Parameters". 

Yep, you could create that Mainstage system in Bidule.
but it *allows* you to just hook up a midi connection.

The Mainstage system seems cool.
If Mainstage also allows the user to freely route
midi in any way they like then it's a cool program. 


Do I have this right?

The Mainstage concept seems to be based on a controller
which only tells mainstage that a particular controller knob/fader/button 
is moved.
Then, all the complex tricks are done by the virtual control surface.
So the midi controller could equally be a USB controller that just
moves the virtual control knob.

So.. instead of clever programming of a midi pedal, we end up
programming the virtual surface to do the same business.



> 
> I must say that I'm finding the concept of sending external control
> MIDI directly into a plug-in a bit tedious and time consuming in
> Bidule. That is because you have to build the MIDI paths and include
> MIDI event filtering that makes sure only the needed MIDI events get
> through to the plug-in. 

Yep, but isn't that just because the fcb1010 is 
a pain in the way it won't let you freely program the midi channel?
If so, it would seem a bit unfair to blame Bidule, which
in any case lets you midi filter in ways that most hosts don't.

> If I was given the choice I would prefer the
> parameter linking method.

It certainly has it's strong points.

...but what if you want to play the pitch of a loop with Midi Notes
Repeater style? Surely the virtual midi cable to the plug 
would be the obvious way?


andy