# My review of the SkiSwitcher 2 is up



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 26, 2015)

https://ask.audio/articles/review-skiswitcher-2-for-logic-pro-x


----------



## mc_deli (Oct 26, 2015)

Nice review. The Skiswitcher CS2 "preset" is very clever. 
With SS2 are you able to see artic changes in the piano roll if e.g. different midi channels are different colours?


----------



## samphony (Oct 26, 2015)

Jup color note by event channel is what you are looking for.


----------



## A.G (Oct 27, 2015)

Hi Jay,

Nice article as usual. You say "*Cons: *None" at the end of the article which is not correct to my opinion (my note below is valid for all Standard MIDI Channel Switchers). Last year you posted a similar article. Let me summarize both articles and let the Logic users know the true story about the Standard MIDI TBA & RBA Channel Switchers:
*1.* Standard MIDI Channel Switchers are limited to 16 single articulation switching. You can not switch between several Articulations loaded into a given MIDI Channel.
*2. *Standard MIDI Channel Switching is Mono Timbral.
*3.* RBA MIDI Channel Switchers do not offer timeline Articulation change view. 
TBA MIDI FX Channel Switchers offer Articulation Change timeline via the Logic Control Points automation view. 
*4.* There are many modern Instruments which require momentary KS or any other "*On the fly*" switching to recall a given Articulation. Nothing happens if you change the MIDI Channel!
*5.* Most of the Vienna factory Instruments require Articulation switching which needs several messages to be sent at a time to recall:
• Matrix preset;
• X axis;
• Y axis; 
*6.* Etc...

This is a simple example of the *Cons* you missed to mention. 

Conclusion: The Standard MIDI Channel Switchers are alternative utilities, which can not work with 100% of today Articulation Switching Instruments.


----------



## Peter Schwartz (Oct 27, 2015)

See, usually a review is done by someone who uses a product and actually has some experience using it. Here we have exactly the opposite situation, someone with zero experience with my system writing a negative review of it.

But it's no bother to me. Your motives are laughably shallow. Pathetic, actually. Getting caught red-handed setting up shill accounts on VI Control to promote your system and trash talk "the competition" wasn't enough to teach you a lesson -- at least a bit of a lesson in humility. Instead, you see SkiSwitcher and BabylonWaves/ArtConductor as a threat of some kind, and in response to Jay's post, stoop even lower trying to defend your "turf" by trolling this thread with a "review" of a system you know nothing about.

So just as the moderator said in that other thread... "don't expect objective information."

Once again, Ivan, nice goin'! 

[removed by mod]


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 27, 2015)

While I stand by what I wrote in my reviews of both products, once again, I have both, as well as the Babylon Waves Art Conductor, and the SkiSwitcher 2 is what I choose for my personal use. For me it is the one that provides me the flexibility I need with the least complications. and most logical workflow. It works perfectly both with the libraries I use that only have a few keyswitches, like the Hollywood Series, and those I use that are keyswitched instruments.


----------



## A.G (Oct 27, 2015)

Peter Schwartz said:


> Instead, you see SkiSwitcher and BabylonWaves/ArtConductor as a threat of some kind, and in response to Jay's post, stoop even lower trying to defend your "turf" by trolling this thread with a "review" of a system you know nothing about.



Hi Peter,
I do not want to comment spam treads here (where you are trying to do your best to go out of the topic). My reply is addressed to the Jay's article, not to your product.
I comment the Standard Channels switchers (including the ones I have developed in the pass as well). As you see I love this quick type of Articulation/Channel switching (this is the reason I created the Environment Channel Switcher in 2005, MIDI FX Channel Switcher in 2013 etc). However I clearly realize that the Standard MIDI Channel Switchers can not work with all Instruments offered on the Market. Do you agree?


----------



## Peter Schwartz (Oct 27, 2015)

You wrote: "My reply is addressed to the Jay's article, not to your product."

Your reply is addressed to Jay's article which is about...

...about ???...

...c'mon, you're a smart guy, you can figure it out...


----------



## Carbs (Oct 27, 2015)

All else aside...are those cons legitimate or not? I don't use any of these products, but may be interested.


----------



## snattack (Oct 28, 2015)

Carbs said:


> All else aside...are those cons legitimate or not? I don't use any of these products, but may be interested.



I can answer here:

1. Yes, but not a problem.
2. Not SkiSwitcher2.
3. Not a problem, rather the opposite IMO.
4. Not a problem
5. Not a problem

"Not a problem" means in this case something that can be easily overcome when setting up the template, and the advantages of having channel switching outmanouvers any other arguments workflow wise imo.

Having the articulations "baked in" to the notes saves me tons of time compared to anything related to drawing stuff. Doing complicated phrases when quickly mixing longs, shorts, trills, etc, would be a nightmare drawing in rather than just change the channel of a specific note.


----------



## Carbs (Oct 28, 2015)

@snattack 

Thank you very much!

*"Doing complicated phrases when quickly mixing longs, shorts, trills, etc, would be a nightmare drawing in"*

It IS!!! That's the way I currently do it and I hate it. I would rather learn a new way of doing things to speed up my workflow than deal with the creative buzzkill that that method entails.


----------



## Silence-is-Golden (Oct 28, 2015)

As a recent user of SS2 I am very content with it.
And as an addition Peter has been very helpful with setting it up in Logic as I am not very knowledgeable about the 'environment'.
( also Jay has helped me very willingly directly on another occasion.)

The big plus of this system for me is also that you don't see the keyswitches in the score editor as well as its ease of use. I am a musician mainly and like to be busy with that, and not be distracted by software that should help with that goal.

All in all, succesful piece of software as far as I am concerned.

To Mr Ag Tools: I would recommend that you use a new thread if you want potential customers to see what you got. Please be decent enough to respect other peoples products.


----------



## samphony (Oct 28, 2015)

I personally think that the so called "old" method is the best for my workflow. Why? Because my old and still valid way of working was/is to load all (16) essential articulations into an instance of kontakt. Usually I point(ed) 16 (midi) tracks to that instance and stich(ed) together my phrases. Then I discovered these tools. I've bought the AG Toolkit but got frustrated the way the TBA workflow was/is applied. Meaning if you move selected notes in the piano roll you have to move the automation in the tracks view afterwards. The other downside for me > being able to latch articulations while playing live forces me to open the scripter editor in every scripter plugin. It's all fine if drawn in. Also the midi fx scripter plugin articulation change won't be recorded if you play freely without recording/ using capture midi take as recording.

Thanks to an eye opening conversation with Peter I realized that the environment tool is what I was looking for when playing live to change articulations on the fly.

Yes the LPX built in Note Event Channel method limits the user to 16 articulations but thanks to the scripter midi fx one can overcome that if it is an issue.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 28, 2015)

I don't want to throw fuel on this fire, but I should say the following:

1. Both Ivan and Peter were given the opportunity to see the reviews I wrote before I submitted the final version and both were allowed to request corrections and ultimately pronounced themselves satisfied with them.

2. Both can be made to work with keyswitched instruments, separate articulations combined in a multi, and even a combination of KS patches with non-KS patches.

If anyone who has read the reviews wants more info from me, we will have to do it through PMs or email.


----------



## Bunford (Oct 28, 2015)

Fight, fight, fight 

This is daft. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. To be fair, A.G. does say "nice article" and that the cons were "his opinion", which he is entitled to have. However, to then go on to make the cons sound definitive (rather than opinion) and to name drop his own products in further posts, subtly (or not so subtly) implying SS2 is inferior is very underhand. Perhaps a bit of an overreaction to the first post by Peter too, which is understandable to an extent when someone challenges your product, but probably antagonised further posts by A.G.

Time to draw a line under it, pretend it never happened and behave like adults I reckon 

I know nothing about these, but interested in them as looking for an articulation switching solution now that I am considering switching from Cubase to Logic. Therefore, will want to keep a watching brief on this!


----------



## jonathanwright (Oct 28, 2015)

I'm a happy SS2 user here too.

Yes, there is the unavoidable 16 channel limit, but I've actually found it's helped my workflow rather than hindered it. Taking a few moments to figure out which articulations I need, rather than throwing everything but the kitchen sink in means my template and composing is immeasurable more streamlined.

The automation method of switching is also perfectly usable too, but I just can't deal with all of the automation squiggles on the screen.


----------



## snattack (Oct 28, 2015)

jonathanwright said:


> I'm a happy SS2 user here too.
> 
> Yes, there is the unavoidable 16 channel limit, but I've actually found it's helped my workflow rather than hindered it. Taking a few moments to figure out which articulations I need, rather than throwing everything but the kitchen sink in means my template and composing is immeasurable more streamlined.
> 
> The automation method of switching is also perfectly usable too, but I just can't deal with all of the automation squiggles on the screen.



I agree. I've never really understood UACC-maps containing 50 articulations, it's not fast enough drawing in, and it's not very convenient having on an iPad.

I've divided different string techniques on different tracks (ord, sul pont, sul tasto), and even an extensive library like Sable or BS uses 11-12 articulations per track if configured properly.

I also find the idea of selecting the articulation on the iPad/Keyswitch before recording (rather than always have to punch it in during recording) very handy.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 28, 2015)

I would *never* buy a product from a company that feels the need to slam its competitors on VI-Control.

That's all I have to say.


----------



## hazza (Nov 2, 2015)

I've always been dubious of the TBA method that AGToolkit employs, and now reading above I realise I would have to ditch "capture as recording" (to which I am vehemently devoted), so I think that's a deal-breaker.

BUT.. while libraries like Sable are bringing out updates with glorious new legatos, every articulation under the sun available instantly through the excellent UACC.. if I go with SkiSwitcher I will have to ditch the big combo patches and decide on 16 articulations that I will be forever limited to. How is this not a nightmare?!

Thinking out loud from here on... 

Is there a way potentially to combine two messages so you could, for instance, have legato defined as ch1 but have a sub CC or something which would define arco/trem/flaut etc? I guess this compromises the bulletproof nature of 1-channel 1-articulation.

Is there any other way to beat the 16 channel limit? With the VEPro multiport layer perhaps? I know it's not 100% reliable. What about these Articulation IDs that Logic has built in but are only used for Logic's own drum instruments, can they not be utilised somehow?

Key switching in Logic has been the bugbear of my life and I just wish there was a magical solution to it all.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 2, 2015)

You CAN still use the big combo patches AND if you wantwant, combine them with individual articulations.


----------



## hazza (Nov 2, 2015)

Ok, yes that makes sense. So you would use a combination of specific midi channel and CC message for those combo patches?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 2, 2015)

Peter has a script for it. The only limitation is that the combo patch(es) must come first in the multi.


----------



## hazza (Nov 2, 2015)

Thanks jay, look forward to checking it out.


----------



## Peter Schwartz (Nov 2, 2015)

Hi Hazza,

There is definitely a way to combine two messages just as you described, though there are technical and operational limitations that might not make it the ideal solution. To make this happen on the most basic level would require a simple modification to the Script and it would be easy to do. I'd be happy to discuss this with you offline so we can get specific with the details.

However, I'd be happy to explore some of this here, and get a little deeper into the operation, looking at how things work with keyswitching or other kinds of "combo" patches which -- unlike multi-timbral plugins -- require that you send them some kind of "switch-to-this-articulation instruction" in the form of a MIDI event.

As you probably know, my system uses MIDI Channels as indicators of which articulation a note is supposed to play. Based on the MIDI channel, an articulation-switching instruction (a keyswitch note) is generated by the Script and sent to the plugin just before the note plays. This only occurs on an as-needed basis, so the system isn't constantly sending these Script-generated keyswitches to the plugin every time a note plays (that would be redundant and waste bandwidth).

I can easily modify the Script to send CC's (according to the UACC setup) instead of keyswitch notes. Easy peasy. Were I to do this, you'd still be able to change articulations after-the-fact simply by changing the MIDI Channel. So I can do this, no problem. The only problem might be the 16-channel limitation. My design philosophy is to have the notes "select their own articulations" and in effect that's exactly what happens, because the MIDI channel info is embedded into each note. And there is no other way to build in additional information to a note.

So that's one way to approach this.

Another way would be to have my Environment Macro generate the appropriate UACC CC value based on what keyswitch key you play (and you could have an unlimited range of them) and not deal with MIDI Channels at all. This would easily overcome the 16-channel limitation. You could have (say) 32 keyswitch notes that outputted 32 different CC values. Those CC values would be recorded just like MIDI notes or any other MIDI data. That all sounds great in theory, and you could do Capture Recording as usual. But there are huge problems with doing things this way. For one, you'd likely end up routinely recording conflicting CC values. And as you hunt/peck for the right articulation, those CC's would get recorded and you'd just have to edit/untangle them afterward.

I _could_ make things work so that the CC you end up generating only gets recorded upon playing a note, but that's complicated to do in the environment and I don't know that it would be entirely trustworthy.

Finally, since only one CC value can be active at any given moment, it would prevent the possibility of doing polyphonic articulation switching, and this seems to be a popular feature of my lil' system.

All that said... I have a system in beta which overcomes all of these limitations. Unlimited articulations and multi-port layer access. I haven't put it on the market for several reason, however. First, it requires a bit of "finagling" with control surface programming to get it to work. Once set up, it all works beautifully! But like most custom control surface programming setups, that programming often breaks inexplicably (it's a Logic thing) and I'm not sure I feel comfortable putting something out there which carries with it the caveat of "it might break down once in a while ("it's a Logic thing")".

But... all _that_ said... if you'd like to explore the possibility of using SkiSwitcher2 with UACC, I'd be happy to discuss it further. Please contact me either via PM or from the Contact page on my website. As anyone who knows me knows (and as do now many of my customers), I LOVE to talk about this stuff.


----------



## Peter Schwartz (Nov 2, 2015)

BTW, if any of the above is unclear, or I'm assuming that you are familiar with the operation of my system (but you're not)... rather than type a million more words, let me please suggest that you watch the video on my website that explains the working combination of the environment-based Macro with the Script. Website link is in my signature below. Cheers!


----------



## kclements (Nov 2, 2015)

Peter Schwartz said:


> .... As anyone who knows me knows (and as do now many of my customers), I LOVE to talk about this stuff.



Boy, can I vouch for this. Peter is emensly reachable and helpful. His customer service is bested by no one!


----------



## hazza (Nov 3, 2015)

Thanks so much for the detailed reply Peter. I'm also a bit of an obsessive nerd when it comes to this stuff, I'll post my custom Logic trackball control system here one of these days . So yes delighted to work with you on this when I get some time.

I totally understand the beauty and simplicity of your MIDI-channel-defining-articulation solution, and great that you could "attach" additional CC messages to the outgoing notes.. it's just the 16 channel limitation which is the annoyance. It's a shame there is not a spare "byte" of data or say 128 channels in the MIDI spec!

I look forward to having a good look through your video material so I fully understand what SkiSwitcher can do. For the minute I can say I have no interest in converting note key switches to CC messages, I can't see any benefit in that. My interest in finding a better solution is borne out of the frustration of having to spend a vast proportion of my composing time tinkering with the data, due to Logic having numerous bugs that mess up controller data when you merge / split regions, having to keep note keyswitches unquantised and untransposed, those kind of headaches that keep you from getting in the zone.

But your beta system sounds wonderful! Very interested to hear more about how that works. I think Logic's MIDI scripter is a great tool and have been thinking how it could be used for other time-saving tricks like polyphonic legato, a la LASS Auto Arranger (which I found incredibly confusing and gave up on) but universal. But we still have our 16 channel limit


----------



## hazza (Nov 3, 2015)

I'm confused.. Surely Apple's own Articulation IDs are the perfect solution for this - an extra 0-127 value that is attached to each note. Is there a reason that you've decided not to use these Peter? Maybe Apple's implementation of them isn't yet solid. I found a midi script that converts CC data into Articulation IDs, can these be recorded live into Logic? I would imagine the conversion of Articulation ID to note/CC key switch would be pretty easy on the way out. What am I missing?!


----------



## mc_deli (Nov 3, 2015)

hazza said:


> I'm confused.. Surely Apple's own Articulation IDs are the perfect solution for this - an extra 0-127 value that is attached to each note. Is there a reason that you've decided not to use these Peter? Maybe Apple's implementation of them isn't yet solid. I found a midi script that converts CC data into Articulation IDs, can these be recorded live into Logic? I would imagine the conversion of Articulation ID to note/CC key switch would be pretty easy on the way out. What am I missing?!




What script did you find, what does it do?

(When I looked into this and used this script, in the end, it didn't work because if limitations of how Logic handles the Articulation ID data)


----------



## Peter Schwartz (Nov 3, 2015)

Indeed, Logic's own Articulation ID _is_ perfect for this. And the system I have (which I mentioned is in beta) uses exactly that. It really is the "perfect storm", theoretically, but the caveats I mentioned and others apply... Having to do a little control "learning" (and that being unreliable in the long run), and the lack of any functions to let you select notes with specific articulation ID's are two of the biggies. So... save to say that I have a version of SkiSwitcher uses Articulation ID, works universally with Vienna, UACC, multi-timbral plugins, keyswitching plugins, multi-port layers in VEP, and any and all combinations -- and it works under the paradigm of "the notes select their own articulations". It works very nicely  but I'm reticent to actually sell it (yet) for the reasons mentioned above.


----------



## Peter Schwartz (Nov 3, 2015)

Hazza, thanks for your previous post.  And in your latest post, you hit the nail on the head. It is entirely possible to record articulation ID's into Logic _on input, _in effect attaching that "4th data byte" to a note and overcoming all of the limitations. The result is that each note selects its own articulation because of the (now) embedded articulation ID, leaving the MIDI channel entirely free and clear to be used for (OMG) something else! Or, just left alone so that notes can be assigned to different voices in polyphonic staff styles. But again, reliability and ease-of-use when it comes to editing are holding me back.


----------



## creativeforge (Nov 3, 2015)

Peter Schwartz said:


> Hazza, thanks for your previous post.  And in your latest post, you hit the nail on the head. It is entirely possible to record articulation ID's into Logic _on input, _in effect attaching that "4th data byte" to a note and overcoming all of the limitations. The result is that each note selects its own articulation because of the (now) embedded articulation ID, leaving the MIDI channel entirely free and clear to be used for (OMG) something else! Or, just left alone so that notes can be assigned to different voices in polyphonic staff styles. But again, reliability and ease-of-use when it comes to editing are holding me back.



(I read the words, I understand what they mean individually and can pronounce them, but as they are sequenced in these sentences I cannot visualize or connect them to any previous life experience or area of activity... You guys are "beyond!"  )


----------



## Peter Schwartz (Nov 3, 2015)

One last thing... It's easy to write a script that will attach articulation ID to notes based on some other kind of information that precedes the notes -- such as a CC, or a program change message, or whatever. In fact, I just wrote it and it only takes a couple of lines of code. But...

It doesn't create a situation where that articulationID-embedded information can be recorded, and that's because a Script's output can't be recorded. (Well, it _can_, but to do it doesn't paint a pretty picture and isn't worth the effort). So for all intents and purposes... yes, a Script can attach Articulation ID to notes. No problem. But to be able to see that data with the embedded ID -- for the purpose of editing it -- can't happen. You'll still need to record an actual "articulation-switching instructional event" (like a keyswitch note, program change message, or CC) to get the Script to _then_ embed the MIDI notes with an ID. This goes against the design philosophy of my system, but the Script-based thingamabob as I described does indeed work.

[EDIT/ADDITION]FWIW, and thinking out loud (don't hold me to this...) I can experiment with this a bit more and if it's successful, totally reliable, etc., I could make it available under the name of "Ski-Hypocrisy Switcher"  (working title) if it would be useful to people.


----------



## Audio Birdi (Nov 3, 2015)

Peter Schwartz said:


> Indeed, Logic's own Articulation ID _is_ perfect for this. And the system I have (which I mentioned is in beta) uses exactly that. It really is the "perfect storm", theoretically, but the caveats I mentioned and others apply... Having to do a little control "learning" (and that being unreliable in the long run), and the lack of any functions to let you select notes with specific articulation ID's are two of the biggies. So... save to say that I have a version of SkiSwitcher uses Articulation ID, works universally with Vienna, UACC, multi-timbral plugins, keyswitching plugins, multi-port layers in VEP, and any and all combinations -- and it works under the paradigm of "the notes select their own articulations". It works very nicely  but I'm reticent to actually sell it (yet) for the reasons mentioned above.


This sounds mighty intriguing :D :O. It'd be a very viable alternative to Expression Maps for sure :D. Could Articulation ID's be used with the CC editor inside the Piano Roll or is it simply select a number associated to the relevant articulation ? Also, can we name the articulation ID's on a per track basis and show the names themselves too?  thanks in advance!


----------



## hazza (Nov 4, 2015)

How frustrating and ridiculous that Apple have given us this functionality but that it's not been implemented quite well enough to be usable! Hopefully there are some lines of communication open with the Apple devs, at least from the big developers if not the little guys?



Peter Schwartz said:


> [EDIT/ADDITION]FWIW, and thinking out loud (don't hold me to this...) I can experiment with this a bit more and if it's successful, totally reliable, etc., I could make it available under the name of "Ski-Hypocrisy Switcher"  (working title) if it would be useful to people.



If you could get it to work it would be amazing Peter!


----------



## hazza (Nov 4, 2015)

mc_deli said:


> What script did you find, what does it do?
> 
> (When I looked into this and used this script, in the end, it didn't work because if limitations of how Logic handles the Articulation ID data)



Sorry mc_deli, it was on this page: http://www.logicscripts.net/free-scripts-stuff/
Haven't tried it so no idea if it works. Sounds like you hit the same brick wall as Peter.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 4, 2015)

I am confused. What would the theoretical advantages of the Articulation IDs be compared to Peter's present methodology, works works really well?


----------



## Peter Schwartz (Nov 4, 2015)

Yeah, if you can't record the ID then there's not much point. 

But... Inspired by the conversation we're having, though, I've revisited my artID setup and added a mode to work with EXS-24 (easy). Made some other refinements... At this very moment I'm currently working with a keyswitching patch that has 30 articulations and switching between them nicely, recording ArtID on input and able to overdub different articulations, change articulations after-the-fact, etc. My misgivings notwithstanding... it works.


----------



## Peter Schwartz (Nov 4, 2015)

Jay, the advantage is that I can overcome the 16-channel limitation.

Yeah, the current method works really well. This new method works equally as well, but it comes with caveats, hence my reluctance.


----------



## hazza (Nov 4, 2015)

Amazing news, keep us posted!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 4, 2015)

Peter Schwartz said:


> Jay, the advantage is that I can overcome the 16-channel limitation.
> 
> Yeah, the current method works really well. This new method works equally as well, but it comes with caveats, hence my reluctance.




But when AU 2 is implemented, that is going away anyway.


----------



## hazza (Nov 4, 2015)

But way better if you can keep your 16 MIDI channels for.. er.. selecting MIDI channels (e.g. polyphonic score separation, as Peter mentioned).

Is AU 2 official? What's the timescale?

Another question for Peter.. if the Articulation IDs need to be converted to keyswitch followed by note, will that cause noticeable latency? Or are we talking only a tick or two?


----------



## Peter Schwartz (Nov 4, 2015)

Jay, how so? And I have the same question about timescale. Information please! 

Hi Hazza, for keyswitch patches, ArtID's are converted to keyswitch notes on an as-needed basis (as in my present system). No noticeable delay. Same situation with UACC: ArtID's are converted to CC messages, only when needed. For use with EXS-24 patches, no conversion required.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 4, 2015)

hazza said:


> But way better if you can keep your 16 MIDI channels for.. er.. selecting MIDI channels (e.g. polyphonic score separation, as Peter mentioned).
> 
> Is AU 2 official? What's the timescale?



Well as I suggest in my books and Peter suggests in his video, it is generally best with Logic Pro to have two versions: one for sound and another for score prep.

Anyone who knows about AU 2 and its timetable are not talking for fear of a contract hit being issued by Apple


----------



## Vik (Nov 4, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> But when AU 2 is implemented, that is going away anyway.


Yes, but not the other benefits of using MIDI Channels as.... MIDI Channels. They can actually be used for a few things: controlling polyphonic display in the score editor, for instance. (ETA: Not only that, but that's also the only way to do it!!)
And - when/if Apple at some point will develop their Articulation ID solution, a lot of good stuff could be happening, like for instance the ability to just select a few notes and give them a new articulation from a contextual menu - and so on. So if I were to choose between a rather good solution, which relayed on MDI Channels for articulation control, and an almost as good solution, which used Articulation IDs for articulation control, I'd go for the one which used Articulation IDs, because it's more future proof.
It may be a good idea today to work with and edit two different versions of a score (one for sound and one for score), but with some work on Apple's side, this should be unnecessary in a lot of cases.

Also, we can't deny that the list earlier in this thread - about cons associated with using MIDI for controlling artics has some truth to it - for instance the fact that there are many instruments which require "momentary KS" switching to activate an articulation.

And - with the almost revolutionary improvements which has happened ir virtual instruments over the last few years, it would be kind of silly to not use a dedicated parameter to control all these detail, wouldn't it? Think of all the options that would become easily available in Logic if we'll ever will se proper articulation control. The ideas from Pete Thomas' solution could be implemented (type Pizz in score, and the next notes will be played back as pizz notes), or the ideas from that French guy who controls articulations by using MIDI Meaning plus graphical icons for Pizz and so forth.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 4, 2015)

Got it. As Peter can testify to,I am not adverse to reinventing my workflow every three months when I see potential improvement.

So I am open to any and all, but personally I think I will always prefer to do articulation switching in real time to after the fact with e.g. adding text to the score editor.


----------



## Vik (Nov 4, 2015)

Imagine a composer who have made a piano piece, and edited so it looks the way people expect to see it - in terms of polyphonic voices, rests, note lengths etc. This r e q u r e s editing MIDI Channels in Logic, and it has been like that since the Atari days. Today, he wants to convert his song into a string quartet arrangement. But: The very second he'll try to change a MIDI Channel in order to control articulations the-workaround-way, his score is going to look wrong. 

Or: Imagine if... no, when people will make music on iPad pros, or laptops with touch screens, and desktop Macs with touch controllers... with proper articulation control, they can just press a litte harder on one of the selected notes in the viola voice and select Col Legno, and they will be played back with Col Legno artics. 

And: with some changes to how articulations are done in Logic, one can open up a MIDI file with some Bach four part chorales, and both have them look right for piano playing AND have it sound like a string quartet!

Again: one cannot get a display like this in Logic without changing MIDI Channels:







(Note that this isn't avantgarde music, it's easy, simple four voice composition; stuff composers need to deal with at the very beginning of their studies.)


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 4, 2015)

Yep, I totally get it. Like I say, I have always kept 2 versions of the project (easier now in LP X with Project Alternatives) one for sound, one for score display but if it could be reliably just one, that would be the bee's knees and if Articulation IDs are the key to it, well count me in, when Peter says it is safe to go in to the water


----------



## Peter Schwartz (Nov 4, 2015)

First, please be aware that this "list of cons" is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt by a jealous competitor to besmirch my wares. I simply _will not address it._

However, I will address Vik's point because it's a reasonable one to discuss. Yes, it's true, MIDI channels are the only way to assign notes to voices in polyphonic staff styles and that makes for a conflict with my system. But... as I see it, the benefits of using MIDI channels to provide perfect articulation switching/chasing (as well as make possible the other features of my lil' system) make for a very reasonable tradeoff. And this is coming from a hard-core score editor user: if I need to make a polyphonic part out of a SkiSwitcher-ized MIDI region, I make a copy of it for score purposes. So for me it's not a big deal. For someone else it might be and -- if so -- fair enough. Right? Right. If someone came to me and said that they absolutely needed to have perfect compatibility between their mockup and their score prep, I'd be the first one to tell them that my system wouldn't be right for them.

Anyway, here's the real deal...

All of these systems entail tradeoffs. Though, it's all about "tradeoffs" or "limitations" compared to... what? So to get past that BS and get real...

When you compare all of these systems, each one of them has strengths and weaknesses compared to one another. In light of the huge number of variations in plugin design, workflow, and personal preference... well, let's just say that it's a good thing that people have upwards of 3 or 4 different systems to choose from. And may they pick the best one for them! If it's mine, great. If it's not, that's fine too.


----------



## hazza (Nov 4, 2015)

I'm super excited at the prospect of having a SINGLE universal method that all (Mac) libraries utilise, so editing is consistently easy and you don't have to remember a hundred different ways of doing the same thing.


----------



## Peter Schwartz (Nov 4, 2015)

Giving it my best shot here...  Stay tuned for more...


----------



## Vik (Nov 4, 2015)

Bee's knees it ees, Jay. 


Peter Schwartz said:


> However, I will address Vik's point because it's a reasonable one to discuss. Yes, it's true, MIDI channels are the only way to assign notes to voices in polyphonic staff styles and that makes for a conflict with my system. But... as I see it, the benefits of using MIDI channels to provide perfect articulation switching/chasing (as well as make possible the other features of my lil' system) make for a very reasonable tradeoff. And this is coming from a hard-core score editor user: if I need to make a polyphonic part out of a SkiSwitcher-ized MIDI region, I make a copy of it for score purposes. So for me it's not a big deal.


Sure. After all, you are Ski.  

But needing to make edits in several versions can't, IMO, be a better solution than just make edits in one version - let alone needing to deal with the fact that some of us have projects which only use alternatives, have 10 auto-saved versions per song, in addition to separate versions as separate projects (for clean-up purposes etc)... Needing to deal with all many songs/backups/alternatives and "side-projects" can't - the way I see it - be done in a better way than if Apple implemented all that's needed in order to control artics without installing objects in the Environment every time one needs to deal with a previous version. I literally have thousands of Logic-files, and often need to go back and look up or find something in earlier files, so I'm talking about real life scenario here!

The good news, of course, is that for people who make 3rd part solutions dealing with artics, we can trust that a) it will still take months, if not years, before Apple's Articulation ID solution will be developed, and b) many users who are serious about this have already moved over to Cubase - or plan to do that. So there should definitely be a market for a 3rd part solution which is based on Apple's own articulation ID tags for quite some time to come. And don't get me wrong guys, even if I think that in an ideal world, there should be any need for Logic users to buy 3rd part workarounds or call someone in LA for him to explain why it works at hisp lace and not at theirs, I think it's great that you and Jay and others spend time on this! 



> it's all about "tradeoffs" or "limitations" compared to... what?


...compared to the idea solution: that Apple gets their act together and tries to deal with what Steinberg started to deal with many years ago.



> If it's mine, great. If it's not, that's fine too.


----------



## Peter Schwartz (Nov 4, 2015)

> Sure. After all, you are Ski.


OMG, not THAT guy!?!?! 

I totally agree with you that the ideal solution would be just as elegant as you described. Needing several versions is definitely _not_ ideal, but I guess my point is that different people have different needs and so it becomes a matter of "picking your poison" (as it were).




> ...even if I think that in an ideal world, there should be any need for Logic users to buy 3rd part workarounds or call someone in LA for him to explain why it works at his place and not at theirs, I think it's great that you and Jay and others spend time on this!


I totally agree (the first part) and "thank you!" (second part).

Best Regards,

PS


----------



## samphony (Nov 6, 2015)

Peter Schwartz said:


> Indeed, Logic's own Articulation ID _is_ perfect for this. And the system I have (which I mentioned is in beta) uses exactly that. It really is the "perfect storm", theoretically, but the caveats I mentioned and others apply... Having to do a little control "learning" (and that being unreliable in the long run), and the lack of any functions to let you select notes with specific articulation ID's are two of the biggies. So... save to say that I have a version of SkiSwitcher uses Articulation ID, works universally with Vienna, UACC, multi-timbral plugins, keyswitching plugins, multi-port layers in VEP, and any and all combinations -- and it works under the paradigm of "the notes select their own articulations". It works very nicely  but I'm reticent to actually sell it (yet) for the reasons mentioned above.


Wow. Purchasing SS2 right now


----------



## samphony (Nov 6, 2015)

Vik said:


> Bee's knees it ees, Jay.
> 
> Sure. After all, you are Ski.
> 
> ...


Sorry to say that but Cubase is not for everyone. Also steinberg hasn't developed their system further. It's cumbersome to setup and has its glitches too!


----------



## samphony (Nov 6, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> But when AU 2 is implemented, that is going away anyway.


You mean AU3?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 6, 2015)

samphony said:


> You mean AU3?



Yes.


----------



## samphony (Nov 7, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> Yes.


It will be interesting to see if VEP with an AU3 server plugin leads to the same issues Cubase users have with asioguard 2.

An exciting possibility would be if AU3 allows to overcome the 255 instrument track limit!


----------



## prodigalson (Nov 20, 2015)

I've been using SS2 a bit and have found it phenomenally easy to install thanks to a very clear installation video. 

the 16-articulation limitation hasn't bothered me much. For me, I don't need more (for what I'm doing right now). 

And when we talk about "momentary keyswitching" are we talking about libraries that use latching and velocity-based articulation selection etc? And if we are, don't the vast majority of those libraries also provide means to configure the library to select articulation by KS too? 

For me, having the ability to have 100% articulation chasing without keyswitches in the score in a system that is easy to understand and simple to set up is worth the other supposed limitations. 

But as Peter mentioned, there's no silver bullet for everyone's system, preferences and workflow.


----------



## wbacer (Nov 21, 2015)

I just finished setting up SkiSwitcher 2 in my template. It works great with Kontakt, East West and VSL libraries, all of which are set up in VEPro5. Peter's additional scripting for CS2 makes it much easier to access those articulations. I also set up a second 25 key keyboard dedicated to just SkiSwitching. If you are using Logic X, I highly recommend SkiSwithcer 2 to help streamline your workflow. It's very easy to setup and Peter is always available with timely and informative support.


----------



## stigc56 (Nov 23, 2015)

Hi
I have just bought SkiSwitcher2 and installed it on my system. I understand the way it works and it looks fairly transparent to me. But I use a lot of VSL libraries, and if I want the script to work with more than 12 articulations, as in my Piccolo patch which have 27 slots where 6 are duplicates = 21 different articulations then I loose my way. Is the upper limitation with VSL libs 12 articulations?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 23, 2015)

I don't use any of the VSL libraries and I don't know anything about their player, but Peter does, so contact him and he will help you.


----------



## stigc56 (Nov 23, 2015)

Hi Jay I will!


----------



## Peter Schwartz (Nov 23, 2015)

Hi Stig,

First, thanks for getting my system! Regarding VSL, I'm just finishing up a VSL Script that will let you keyswitch between up to 16 articulations without having to record separate Y-Axis movements. I'll be releasing this shortly and you will of course be getting a copy (it will be a free update).

However, because my system uses MIDI channels to associate articulations with notes, there's a "natural" limitation of switching between up to 16 cells.

I'd be happy to discuss your specific needs and see what other options I might be able to offer you.


----------



## Peter Schwartz (Nov 23, 2015)

If you like, contact me at support =at= skiswitcher =dot= com. Cheers!


----------



## OleJoergensen (Feb 17, 2016)

I watched the instruction video (again) and had a good laugh (again), who did that scream mr. Schwartz :-D?
A more serious question. Does your system also work with the ability, in Hollywoods Strings, to change finger position? 
Until now I've used "the old" Logic/ Ve-pro keys-switch system, where al key-switches are recorded and monitored in the piano roll. I know it affects the score and it has some other difficulties but it is easy to monitor which key-switches I use. I believe the SS2 will just be an other way of monitoring the keys-switches by numbers in the event list...?


----------



## Peter Schwartz (Feb 17, 2016)

Hi Ole,

SS2 will work to with pretty much any keyswitching patch. So yes, it can be used to change finger positions in HW Strings. And of course you won't end up with any keyswitch notes recorded in your track.

I don't recall if those patches are poly or mono, but if they're poly, you can have each note in an octave or chord play a different finger position by way of having each note on a different MIDI channel. Even with single-note phrases, you can really fine-tune the sound of each note (for purposes of intonation or timbre) by changing the MIDI channel of the notes either live or after-the-fact.

Oh, and regarding that scream... No, that wasn't me. That was the sound of the collective consciousness of  environment-averse Logic users. 

To the last parts of your question, MIDI channel-encoded notes won't affect the appearance of the score unless you're using polyphonic staff styles. But for individual string parts, for example, that's usually not an issue. And the MIDI channel not only determines which articulation is played from the patch, but it drives the articulation display in the Scripter's GUI for monitoring purposes.


----------



## OleJoergensen (Feb 19, 2016)

Thank you for reply Peter and taking your time to explain. 
Im not sure if I understand the most of what you explain but I will try step by step.
The finger position keys-switch in Play (East West) is triggered by C0-D sharp0.
I dont know how to integrate that with SS2.


----------



## Peter Schwartz (Feb 19, 2016)

Hi Ole,

Doing what you described is one of the most basic SS2 operations. Just install the Scripter on your HW Strings instrument channel & load up the multi-purpose Script. That's it! The default settings for the Script are exactly what you need to run the HW Strings patch without having to change any settings:

• Patch Type = Keyswitch
• Patch Low KS = C0

The only variable is deciding where you want to switch articulations from: notes from your main controller, from a dedicated 2nd keyboard device, or by sending Logic program change messages. And that choice is selected from the Macro.

Cheers,

Peter


----------



## OleJoergensen (Feb 19, 2016)

My apologizes Im terrible slow .

My setup is that I control 16 different Strings articulation (hosted in V-pro on a Slave) on one instrument track in Logic. Several of the articulation offers 4 different finger position control. I change between these 16 articulation by a 2nd keyboard(2 octaves) -2C to -1D sharp. The finger positions is controlled by C0-D0 sharp in Play. 
I have set up SS2 to Patch Type= Keyswitch and a 2nd controller. The articulation does change but not the finger positions. I can't figure out what Im doing wrong or maybe my setup is not right.


----------



## Peter Schwartz (Feb 19, 2016)

Ah, I see. It's not that you're being slow, not at all. It's that you've got a patch setup that's not set up to work with the system. So yes, you can switch between the patches using SS2 just fine from your 2nd keyboard, but some of the patches contain more than one articulation (keyswitch patches). In other words, you've got a multi-timbral setup where some of the patches are keyswitching. In this case the Scripter needs to be in multi-timbral mode, not keyswitch mode (I'm sure you know that already) and once you select the HW string patch, you'll need to record actual keyswitch notes (C0 to D#0) to change finger positions, and you can play them from your main controller. So while SS2 is designed to eliminate keyswitch notes from being recorded, here's a case where you need to use a combination of methods: SS2 to select the patch, and then once it's selected, using actual k/switch notes to select the finger position.


----------



## Peter Schwartz (Feb 19, 2016)

BTW, the Scripter's "Hybrid Mode" capability is designed to address exactly this situation. But it's limited to using one keyswitching patch (ch1) in combination with multiple, individual-articulation patches on other MIDI channels. However, since your setup includes more than one keyswitching patches, it probably isn't applicable for your situation. At least not at the moment. The next incarnation of SS2 will provide for this kind of capability.


----------



## OleJoergensen (Feb 19, 2016)

Thank you for explaining Peter.
The problem is that the finger position with the Play system has to be activated before the note is played on the string. It will say: articulation-finger position- note played on string. If I understand it correctly, with SS2 the articulation is activated at the same time as the note is played on the string, so I can't squeeze the finger position in between. But mostly I use the 4th finger position so maybe I should change my setup, it will save some Ram.


----------



## OleJoergensen (Feb 19, 2016)

I did put on my glasses and looked in the Hollywood string manual and find out the finger knob can be controlled by cc70  and it works well. I tested 1. violins with the set up I described before and tried also to use The CC cloner script. It seems to work better for me. I will study some more to morrow (night time in Denmark now) before I ask more.
Thank you for your always patience and kind explaining Peter.


----------



## Peter Schwartz (Feb 19, 2016)

Hi Ole, I'm glad to try and help with your setup and extra glad that you discovered a way to work this out. And for sure, using the Cloner should make it easy to send CC70 on one MIDI channel and have it copied to other channels.


----------



## PrestoVivace (Mar 25, 2016)

Hi there!
I just bought SkiSwitcher2. 
I was wondering if there is any "standard" or list for in which order to put your articulations?
Or is it just up to users own likings?


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 25, 2016)

PrestoVivace said:


> Hi there!
> I just bought SkiSwitcher2.
> I was wondering if there is any "standard" or list for in which order to put your articulations?
> Or is it just up to users own likings?



No standard. The best advice I have is to try to keep it consistent for instruments when using multiple libraries, a kind of General MIDI approach. For example for violin 1: legato, regular sustain, shorts patch, pizz., etc.


----------



## PrestoVivace (Mar 25, 2016)

Ok, thanks for info. 

Have I understood it right?
Because you need all those Midi channels for articulations, you have to use separate, lets say, PLAY or Kontakt for every sound?
One for Violin 1, one for Violin 2, etc.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 25, 2016)

PrestoVivace said:


> Ok, thanks for info.
> 
> Have I understood it right?
> Because you need all those Midi channels for articulations, you have to use separate, lets say, PLAY or Kontakt for every sound?
> One for Violin 1, one for Violin 2, etc.



Yep, just like a score page. That is how Logic and VE Pro work best together, AND if you are a trained guy, it probably matches the way you think.


----------



## Peter Schwartz (Mar 25, 2016)

PrestoVivace said:


> Ok, thanks for info.
> 
> Have I understood it right?
> Because you need all those Midi channels for articulations, you have to use separate, lets say, PLAY or Kontakt for every sound? One for Violin 1, one for Violin 2, etc.



Yes, that's the general approach. But here's another approach, some food for thought if you're using Vienna Ensemble Pro... 

As you might know, VEPro lets you host plugins from different developers within a virtual rack (called an "Instance"). With this in mind, you could assemble a collection of (say) orchestral cymbal sounds from different libraries in a single Instance. You'd set each sound to respond on a different MIDI channel and switch between them using SkiSwitcher's range of keyswitch keys (channel-changing keys). Now you've got a multi-timbral setup that you can operate as though it were a keyswitching patch, with all sounds playable on one track.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 25, 2016)

Peter Schwartz said:


> Yes, that's the general approach. But here's another approach, some food for thought if you're using Vienna Ensemble Pro...
> 
> As you might know, VEPro lets you host plugins from different developers within a virtual rack (called an "Instance"). With this in mind, you could assemble a collection of (say) orchestral cymbal sounds from different libraries in a single Instance. You'd set each sound to respond on a different MIDI channel and switch between them using SkiSwitcher's range of keyswitch keys (channel-changing keys). Now you've got a multi-timbral setup that you can operate as though it were a keyswitching patch, with all sounds playable on one track.



I would hate that!


----------



## Peter Schwartz (Mar 25, 2016)

You say that with... a smile?

LOL!

You know that I know that you know that there are a million ways to play this articulation-switching game. Personally, I do whatever I want to make it an easier game to play. There are no rules, and that's one of my favorite parts about it.


----------



## Peter Schwartz (Mar 25, 2016)

Jay, where'd your reply go? I had a video reply all set to... Anyway, PrestoMusic, thanks for being a customer. Cheers!


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 25, 2016)

Peter Schwartz said:


> Jay, where'd your reply go? I had a video reply all set to... Anyway, PrestoMusic, thanks for being a customer. Cheers!



Decided not to bust your chops further since I love you and love the SkiSwitcher.


----------



## Peter Schwartz (Mar 25, 2016)

Awwwwww!


----------



## PrestoVivace (Mar 26, 2016)

Thanks for that advice. 
I'm not using VEP (yet), 
but as I'm building my setup, I'll remember that approach.


----------

