I had an EPIPHANY today!!!!!
8 Mar 2008, 05:08Let me begin by saying that I have been involved in MIDI production for about 15 years....
Originally when I bought my FIRST workstation (Roland XP80) the Manual suggested that I record my midi data on the Channel that corresponds with the number of the track. This was a practice that I adopted, simply because the manual "Said So" and I never really even considered another option. I continued with that practice even after I bought my Fantom X6 a couple years ago and all was well....(For the Moment)
Then I bought the padkontrol which has the ability to let EACH PAD transmit on its own midi channel....and I got the idea....what if I could record MULTIPLE CHANNELS of midi data at the SAME TIME?!?
Well I originally THOUGHT that the Fantom's Output assignments were TRACK BASED. I also thought that the "Pad mute" function muted individual TRACKS....
The process of recording drums was VERY labor intensive and NON-intuitive....this was because of the fact that I would record EACH DRUM SOUND (One at a Time) onto its own TRACK. I did this because I thought that this was what I had to do to keep them seperate>I didnt know any better....
Well.....out of FRUSTRATION I decided to do a series of tests to see if I could find a solution to my problem. I found out some things that I never knew.....
1) The fantom X's pad mute function does NOT mute individual tracks....it mutes individual CHANNELS.....
2) The "output assignments" are not Track assignments they are CHANNEL assignments!!!!
The reason that this is so profound (at least for me) is because....I was under the impression that i HAD TO have everything on seperate TRACKS in order to have the flexibility to freely ASSIGN, MUTE and EDIT the Midi Data....
I even remember bugging "Mr Audacity Works" because the New "G" didnt have Midi EXTRACT and MERGE functions.....functions that were critical because of the way I worked. (Sorry Mr. A W)
Due to the NEW information which I have learned I NOW realize that even if I record ALL SIXTEEN MIDI CHANNELS onto one TRACK, I will STILL be able to ROUTE, MUTE, EDIT and assign patches to those sixteen PARTS freely....This is MAJOR for me!
Which brings me to this question....If we can manipulate the data as I stated above..... We dont really NEED 16 tracks do we? After learning what I learned today I feel quite STUPID for having ever recorded any differently in the first place. I will probably NEVER need more that ONE MIDI TRACK (Containing 16 Midi channels of data-that I can manipulate as I please) So the 128 track sequencer on the G seems like TOTAL overkill now...lol
The AUDIO tracks however are something different....
ONE difference that I noticed between the X and the G is that (according to the manual) the "Pad Mute" function on the G will actually mute the TRACK instead of the PART....However this wont change the way I record my sequences....
I now have to RE-EVALUATE whether the G will be a valuable upgrade for me......
Just wanted to share with you all
Thanks for tolerating my ranting!
Originally when I bought my FIRST workstation (Roland XP80) the Manual suggested that I record my midi data on the Channel that corresponds with the number of the track. This was a practice that I adopted, simply because the manual "Said So" and I never really even considered another option. I continued with that practice even after I bought my Fantom X6 a couple years ago and all was well....(For the Moment)
Then I bought the padkontrol which has the ability to let EACH PAD transmit on its own midi channel....and I got the idea....what if I could record MULTIPLE CHANNELS of midi data at the SAME TIME?!?
Well I originally THOUGHT that the Fantom's Output assignments were TRACK BASED. I also thought that the "Pad mute" function muted individual TRACKS....
The process of recording drums was VERY labor intensive and NON-intuitive....this was because of the fact that I would record EACH DRUM SOUND (One at a Time) onto its own TRACK. I did this because I thought that this was what I had to do to keep them seperate>I didnt know any better....
Well.....out of FRUSTRATION I decided to do a series of tests to see if I could find a solution to my problem. I found out some things that I never knew.....
1) The fantom X's pad mute function does NOT mute individual tracks....it mutes individual CHANNELS.....
2) The "output assignments" are not Track assignments they are CHANNEL assignments!!!!
The reason that this is so profound (at least for me) is because....I was under the impression that i HAD TO have everything on seperate TRACKS in order to have the flexibility to freely ASSIGN, MUTE and EDIT the Midi Data....
I even remember bugging "Mr Audacity Works" because the New "G" didnt have Midi EXTRACT and MERGE functions.....functions that were critical because of the way I worked. (Sorry Mr. A W)
Due to the NEW information which I have learned I NOW realize that even if I record ALL SIXTEEN MIDI CHANNELS onto one TRACK, I will STILL be able to ROUTE, MUTE, EDIT and assign patches to those sixteen PARTS freely....This is MAJOR for me!
Which brings me to this question....If we can manipulate the data as I stated above..... We dont really NEED 16 tracks do we? After learning what I learned today I feel quite STUPID for having ever recorded any differently in the first place. I will probably NEVER need more that ONE MIDI TRACK (Containing 16 Midi channels of data-that I can manipulate as I please) So the 128 track sequencer on the G seems like TOTAL overkill now...lol
The AUDIO tracks however are something different....
ONE difference that I noticed between the X and the G is that (according to the manual) the "Pad Mute" function on the G will actually mute the TRACK instead of the PART....However this wont change the way I record my sequences....
I now have to RE-EVALUATE whether the G will be a valuable upgrade for me......
Just wanted to share with you all
Thanks for tolerating my ranting!
