# Spitfire presents: UACC -- Universal midi CC Articulation CC system



## Synesthesia (Apr 30, 2013)

Hi all:

http://www.spitfireaudio.com/uacc-a-new-proposed-standard.html








So - firstly, Mike C - just saw you also posted on this, I hope you don't mind me starting a new thread - only so that I can add videos to post 1 and so on to make it easier for people to find all info!

We are working on a way that this can be easily configured and set up by other devs and indeed customers themselves.






More info will be added as we go further. This is now functional in Sable Vol 2, and will be functional in the Albion series in the next 48 with some hotfixes also.

Cheers!

Paul


----------



## Graham Keitch (Apr 30, 2013)

Excellent - just the ticket for notation users! :D


----------



## Blakus (Apr 30, 2013)

Great idea! Can't wait to learn more!


----------



## Saxer (Apr 30, 2013)

yes, very intelligent idea!

i hope, a lot developers will follow... or at least publish some midi tools to translate their libraries to you-ack!


----------



## JT (Apr 30, 2013)

Paul,

Will this be functional in Sable 1 soon?

JT


----------



## Blackster (Apr 30, 2013)

Guys, this is really a great idea! Congrats! I'm eager to learn more about that!


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Apr 30, 2013)

I love the initiative of standardization among developers. I'm all for that. A few questions about this specifically though -

1. I guess this is only intended to work for orchestral instruments? I would love a standard like this for ANY acoustic instrument. The level of specificity here seems to preclude that though.

2. Though I can see the benefit of using a MIDI CC for articulation switching, this seems like it would be very time-consuming to sequence (you'd have to be extremely precise), not to mention intimidating to memorize. I feel like a user would need to constantly reference this long list to remember how to do X, Y, or Z. For live performance/recording of parts it would be nearly impossible without a specialized controller/app which I don't think a lot of people yet have.

What I would be interested in seeing is something like this but standardized for more common articulations among more classes of instruments, like...

C0 -> Sustain
C#0 -> Mute
D0 -> Staccato
D#0 -> Tremolo
E0 -> Legato
F0 -> Portamento
F#0 -> Harmonics

and so forth. As it is, we wouldn't be able to apply something like this to our own products (as far as I can tell), even though a number of them have many articulations similar to those on this list. It is just a little too specific.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 30, 2013)

Andrew, I'll confess I don't really understand how this works yet, but I'm sure it's not the case that users would have to enter precise CC numbers into a DAW, the idea (as far as I get it) is you use iPad controllers etc to send the values - they stay out of the way and you just use the articulation name (I think).

I'm currently using a Nanokey which is pitched down to the lowest octave, below an 88 key keyboard. Works very well for keyswitching. Not sure if this would integrate with that - I think a video demo of the UACC showing a couple of ways of using it would probably explain it best.


----------



## synthetic (Apr 30, 2013)

Wonderful idea, I've been waiting for something like this. Hopefully you'll get more devs on board.


----------



## Adrian Myers (Apr 30, 2013)

As implemented, UACC would be a better fit for a NanoKontrol.

My initial reaction to UACC in the Sable thread is that it would be more future-proof and extensible if it spanned multiple CCs. Reserve say 2 contiguous CCs... 32 and 33 for sake of argument. The first CC sets a broad category (legato, sustain, shorts, trills, etc) and another selects a specific articulation within that category. This allows broad ranges to be used, which makes something like a NanoKontrol pontentially useful instead of requiring CC lane input. It's also quite future-proof and could easily serve the needs of any library type, however niche or deep.

It also wouldn't have a one-click implementation, wouldn't work well with Expression Maps in Cubase to my knowledge, and requires more fiddling for many simple changes. But since it would offer much more flexibility and some non-DAW control (pretty much every MIDI controller in the world is bristling with faders and knobs now), it might be attractive to more developers as it accomodates a wide range of uses.

Very interesting stuff in any case. I was hoping SF would implement something like this eventually since keyswitching in Sable is already unwieldy even without vol3, and naturally they are way ahead with UACC already.

It's definitely a great concept. Standard proposals like this seem notoriously slow to gain ground but this would be a massive QoL improvement if it got decent support.

P.S. Andrew, on your second point, that's true, but that's why they hope it would become standardized, so the list only has to be memorized once. I feel that a 2- or n-CC breakout would make that more intuitive, at least for some users.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Apr 30, 2013)

I do think that having category -> subcategory probably makes a lot of sense in terms of memorization. For example rather than 17 types of longs and guessing as to which any given library uses, having a simple "Long" or "Sustain" as the main category and subtypes of long/sustain elsewhere would seem to be a good idea. As many non-orch libraries (and even some orch libraries) will not have nearly the depth of articulations as listed on here, it reduces the memorization burden as well.


----------



## Justin Miller (Apr 30, 2013)

I think it looks too complicated, a lot of these artics. aren't in most libraries. Doesn't this make it a pain to layer?


----------



## Daryl (Apr 30, 2013)

I think that it would be better for developers to let you set your own keyswitches and controller numbers. No need for a one size fits all standard.

D


----------



## Saxer (May 1, 2013)

if there is a "standard" it is much easier to translate it to your own settings, even if they are different. and if a standard is established there will be solutions for midi controllers. i already think about making a setting for my novation launchpad in logics environment.


----------



## Sean Beeson (May 1, 2013)

A standard would be awesome :D!


----------



## jamwerks (May 1, 2013)

The more I think about it, the more I think that complete customize capability is the way to go. We all have our own ways of organizing & working.

I'm on DP and am always jealous of the Cubase expression maps. I'd like to say goodbye to keyswitches, and control everything with Program Changes & CC's.


----------



## Daryl (May 1, 2013)

jamwerks @ Wed May 01 said:


> I'm on DP and am always jealous of the Cubase expression maps. I'd like to say goodbye to keyswitches, and control everything with Program Changes & CC's.


Now that DP is able to use VST, there is no reason that MOTU can't incorporate VST Expression, if enough users ask for it.

D


----------



## OLB (May 1, 2013)

Really excited with this development! 

Actually I've been working this way since a few months. I've made this simple custom multi script:






You can choose the main CC, the value to note and what velocity (f.e. CS2 keyswitches react to velocity)

It works for Sable (just downloaded vol2!), Albion, CS2 etc. Well everything in Kontakt. 

I haven't checked the Spitfire script yet so I don't know if this has any added value. But if somebody is interested I can upload it.

Cheers!
Len


----------



## Adrian Myers (May 1, 2013)

OLB @ Wed May 01 said:


> But if somebody is interested I can upload it.



Somebody is interested 

Kontakt scripting for utilities like this is one of those long-dormant "been meaning to get around to that" topics that has gone well into irredeemable shame territory for me. Definitely interested in checking this out.


----------



## OLB (May 1, 2013)

Adrian Myers @ 1/5/2013 said:


> Somebody is interested



Here you go  https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2539838/Midi%20CC%20To%20Note.nkp (Midi CC to Note)

This is for example a configuration for Cinematic Strings 2 (staccato/staccatissimo, low/high position etc):






Download https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2539838/Midi%20CC%20To%20Note%20CS2.nkp (Midi CC to Note CS2)

I use it with TouchOSC on the ipad. Have fun o-[][]-o


----------



## Mike Connelly (May 1, 2013)

Something like a novation launchpad seems like the best hardware control option (other than an iPad of course). For me at least, it seems like pressing programmed buttons would be way handier than trying to jump to a value with a slider. Even though it's technically no longer keyswitching, I still like the idea of pressing buttons.

Expression maps in cubase look cool, and they could certainly work along with this. When particular articulations are selected, do they translate over when they're copied to another instrument on another track? So for example, if a track has Sable pizz selected in the expression map, and that midi is copied over to a LASS track that also has pizz in the expression map, but on a different keyswitch, does it switch it over properly?

And for apps that don't have expression maps, say in Logic is it possible to assign labels to CC values? It would be really cool if it were possible to have a window what lists all the articulations on the side, and shows 



Daryl @ Wed May 01 said:


> I think that it would be better for developers to let you set your own keyswitches and controller numbers. No need for a one size fits all standard.



No reason a library can't include both user customization options and this standard, as well as any other options the developer wants to include. There will always be users who want a custom setup, but for those who want something standard to start with, this would be hugely beneficial and it users who aren't interested can completely ignore it. There certainly seems to be plenty of interest so far.


----------



## valexnerfarious (May 1, 2013)

When will the update emails be sent out Paul?


----------



## hector (May 1, 2013)

i think many devs have been offering this for a while, i can completely customise keyswitches on CineBrass/Albion/Sable/etc. to my own preference


----------



## Synesthesia (May 1, 2013)

hector @ Wed May 01 said:


> Daryl @ Tue Apr 30 said:
> 
> 
> > I think that it would be better for developers to let you set your own keyswitches and controller numbers. No need for a one size fits all standard.D
> ...



Exactly. And the other advantage of using CC over keyswitches: wherever you press play in your sequence, the articulations change immediately to the correct ones.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 1, 2013)

Great idea. It may need some tweaking based on input - for example this is oriented to strings - but I sure like this.


----------



## Daryl (May 1, 2013)

Synesthesia @ Wed May 01 said:


> And the other advantage of using CC over keyswitches: wherever you press play in your sequence, the articulations change immediately to the correct ones.


If you use long KS, there is never a problem, and they are much easier to edit, if necessary, IMO. This is important for me when I might have 8 or 9 KS in one bar.

D


----------



## hazza (May 1, 2013)

Synesthesia @ Wed May 01 said:


> Exactly. And the other advantage of using CC over keyswitches: wherever you press play in your sequence, the articulations change immediately to the correct ones.


Also you can transpose parts without messing up the articulation selection.

Really excited about this.


----------



## Synesthesia (May 1, 2013)

OK. But then, you don't have to clean you midi before the orchestrator gets it as well.. :D

Daryl - I'm not switching off keyswitching in anything, its just an additional alternate way of working!

edit:: Hazza - good point! hadn't thought of that advantage as well.


----------



## Daryl (May 1, 2013)

Synesthesia @ Wed May 01 said:


> OK. But then, you don't have to clean you midi before the orchestrator gets it as well.. :D
> 
> Daryl - I'm not switching off keyswitching in anything, its just an additional alternate way of working!
> 
> edit:: Hazza - good point! hadn't thought of that advantage as well.


I don't need an orchestrator. Other people hire me for that. :wink: 

However, even if I did, all you do is mute the KS before you give the file to the orchestrator, and Robert is your father's brother. In fact it would be one KC and all would be done.

D


----------



## Synesthesia (May 1, 2013)

Daryl,

I get it. You aren't going to be getting your buttons set up on your iPad. 

This will be great for me though, an hopefully a useful tool for a few others. 

Paul


----------



## Daryl (May 1, 2013)

Synesthesia @ Wed May 01 said:


> Daryl,
> 
> I get it. You aren't going to be getting your buttons set up on your iPad.
> 
> Paul


HAHA. I would never get an i-anything. Spawn of the devil.

As it happens all my KS are triggered from my Lemur, so it's not that different. It's just quicker and easier to edit my way.

D


----------



## rgames (May 1, 2013)

hector @ Wed May 01 said:


> The point in UACC seems to be to provide something consistent between libraries so that you can take your string line written in Cinematic Strings and pop it onto Cornucopia, or your horn line from CineBrass and pop it onto Albion


This is exactly what Expression Maps do. In fact, you can even drag string lines from Library A into brass lines from Library B and if they have common articulations the maps will correctly adapt for the change in library standard. It's very handy and really changed my workflow when I started doing that several years ago.

Such a capability needs to be incorporated at the DAW level, not the library level, in order to be truly useful. Trying to incorporate it at the library level will always be too complicated because you'll never anticipate every type of articulation that a library developer will include. Rather, you need a DAW feature that allows you to take what the libraries give you and adapt into a common workspace (which is what Expression Maps do).

We don't need a standard for library articulations; we need a standard for the DAW's handling of those articulations in whatever form they appear. Cubase uses Expression Maps; other DAW's should develop something similar.

rgames


----------



## Plasuma!!! (May 1, 2013)

DAWs are agnostic to the contents of the libraries. How could it possibly know whether your library has minor 2nd trills as an articulation or if that is part of a bigger keyswitch patch, what key or CC value selects it? It doesn't, so we all have to learn how each minor 2nd trills patch is loaded from a given library we own. HS has minor and major 2nds on a keyswitch patch, EWQLSO has those trills separated into two different patches, and LASS requires you to determine the key you're in before-hand via a keyswitch.

I use Cubase's expression maps regularly, and there's no magic bullet there. Every library I use, I have to dig up articulations with their own idiosyncrasies and layouts, assign them proper channels, and, if there are any differences between how those patches work (note vs CC switch vs one channel per articulation), make changes to the expression maps to accommodate it.

The point of this standard is to make translation between orchestral libraries as painless as possible with minimal setup, which it currently isn't. In context of Cubase, imagine that the user loads up one expression map and can use it for absolutely every similar instrument in every other library without having to change anything. I swear I'd give a kidney for that!


----------



## bwherry (May 1, 2013)

rgames @ Wed May 01 said:


> (snip)
> Such a capability needs to be incorporated at the DAW level, not the library level, in order to be truly useful. Trying to incorporate it at the library level will always be too complicated because you'll never anticipate every type of articulation that a library developer will include. Rather, you need a DAW feature that allows you to take what the libraries give you and adapt into a common workspace (which is what Expression Maps do).
> (snip)



This doesn't actually _need_ to be a DAW thing... I developed TransMIDIfier specifically for this purpose - providing a consistent interface for all the different sampled instruments I've got, no matter what library they come from or what sample player they use (ie not just Kontakt). I don't mean to thread hijack, but those of you that are into this sort of thing and haven't tried it ought to give it a shot. Articulation switching is really just the tip of the iceberg. For true consistency from instrument to instrument there's also controller changing and remapping to do and all sorts of other funny business. But the end result is quite liberating - and the creative possibilities are crazy.

Brian


----------



## stargazer (May 2, 2013)

bwherry @ Thu May 02 said:


> rgames @ Wed May 01 said:
> 
> 
> > (snip)
> ...



I've recently started to use TransMIDIfier and I like it a lot, thanks Brian!
I would like to see some more copy/import/export options for building inputs/outputs /patches, and deeper midi transform functions in the future.

I'm on Pro Tools and I miss something like Expression Maps, and the graphical representaton in the DAW of what articulation is current.

I couldn't achieve this in Pro Tools with either controller data or KeySwitches, so I'm using an iPad running MIDI Designer, to change patches etc in realtime, via program changes into Pro Tools. The patch names are then shown in the Midi Editor etc. This also have the advantages of immunity to transposition, compared to KS, and instant updating of patches without having to deal with long KS notes and so on.
The pr. changes from Pro Tools then get converted to KSs by TransMIDIfier, before being routed to VE Pro hosting Kontakt and other VIs.
This way it's easy to change patches playing live and also while editing in your DAW.

Edit: Sorry for being a bit OT, UACC is a great initiative!


----------



## bwherry (May 2, 2013)

stargazer @ Thu May 02 said:


> I've recently started to use TransMIDIfier and I like it a lot, thanks Brian!
> I would like to see some more copy/import/export options for building inputs/outputs /patches, and deeper midi transform functions in the future.
> (snip)



Thanks stargazer. Those things are on the way! BTW, email [email protected] if you have specific requests.

Brian


----------



## Mike Connelly (May 2, 2013)

Daryl @ Wed May 01 said:


> Lemur



I went to check this out, looks like they don't do the hardware anymore and have switched development to iOS. Very cool stuff. After this thread went up I checked out TouchOSC, it looks like a good app but still fairly limited and it looks like development has been stopped for a year or more which is not encouraging.

The Lemur app isn't cheap, but it looks like the most powerful option for OSC control that's available right now. Anyone tried it out? And any touchosc users, does it seem like it would be able to handle control of what's proposed in this standard?


----------



## Blake Ewing (May 2, 2013)

Mike Connelly @ Thu May 02 said:


> Daryl @ Wed May 01 said:
> 
> 
> > Lemur
> ...



Absolutely. Just did a little test with 3 rudimentary buttons (see below). Super quick and worked a charm.


----------



## rgames (May 2, 2013)

bwherry @ Wed May 01 said:


> rgames @ Wed May 01 said:
> 
> 
> > (snip)
> ...


I think it does because in order to be truly useful the DAW has to know which articulation is currently selected. For example, when editing in the MIDI editor, you want to see the articulation controller lane showing which articulation is active over a given span of notes. Likewise, in the score editor you want to see staccato marks on staccato notes, fp marks on fp notes, etc. So the DAW needs to know what's what.

Given that fact, regardless of any standard you adopt at the library level, you'll need to "program" the DAW in some manner to work with that standard. As such, standards at the library level don't really save much work. Sure, they may save you a couple hours of putting together an Expression Map (or whatever in another DAW) but you're going to be using that map for years, so the extra couple hours up front don't really matter. Plus, as I mentioned, you'll never anticipate every articulation that every library is going to use, so for that reason as well you'll have to take time to customize regardless of the standard (which reduces the benefit of establishing a standard in the first place).

rgames


----------



## Mike Connelly (May 2, 2013)

There are definitely advantages to something like expression maps built into the DAW. Absolutely best case scenario would be for every DAW to add the expression maps feature.

But those other ones don't have it, maybe some will get it later and maybe some never will. And not everyone is going to switch to cubase. In the meantime, for everyone using other apps, this is an extremely useful option.


----------



## rgames (May 2, 2013)

Mike Connelly @ Thu May 02 said:


> not everyone is going to switch to cubase.


Nor should they have to. Not everyone wanted to switch to Cubase to use the VST standard, either, but it was eventually adopted elsewhere. We need to do a similar sort of standardization for the sample library world. And, again, you won't achieve anything by doing that at the library level. If someone wants to champion a standard it needs to be one that is implemented at the DAW level, not simply by specifying a collection of standard CC's for a limited set of articulations.

Consider this example: suppose that tomorrow morning all libraries are magically adapted to the proposed library-level articulation standard. Will any DAW be able to show which articulation is currently selected in the MIDI editor? No. Will any DAW be able to correctly show articulation marks in the score editors? No. You still need to do the work to tell the DAW what each CC means in terms of articulation selection.

Whatever work you do in establishing the standard at the library level will have to be re-done at the DAW level in order to make it useful.

Why not just start at the DAW level and save yourself the time?

rgames


----------



## Plasuma!!! (May 2, 2013)

rgames @ Thu May 02 said:


> Whatever work you do in establishing the standard at the library level will have to be re-done at the DAW level in order to make it useful.



No, it won't. That defeats the purpose of this standard.
Expression maps exist because there is no standard in place. It's a feature designed as a compatibility layer, and it would be technically unnecessary if the libraries followed a standard.

Imagine if the x86 standard used in computing was just one of many for mainstream machines. Consumer operating systems would have to be nightmarishly bloated to accommodate them all, and there would be no such thing as plug-and-play hardware. Would you find it a productive use of your time to write drivers for every single piece of hardware in your machine and every configuration thereof? That's the same as making expression maps for every configuration of articulations for a library. It's a massive waste of time and would otherwise be unnecessary.

Standards must start at the lowest level. DAWs are hosts that handle plug-ins, it's not the other way around. Library developers can easily adopt the UACC standard, while most DAW developers could not easily implement an equivalent to Expression Maps.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (May 2, 2013)

Again as a developer, what I find problematic with how UACC is currently presented is that it is too specific to orchestral libraries, and even then, I can think of several libraries I have offhand that have articulations not on that list. Even the venerable Classic Orchestral Brass has medium and long marcatos which simply aren't on there - meanwhile there is far more depth in some categories of articulation than I think most libraries have. 

However, MOST libraries do have some very common articulations... sustain, staccato / marcato, muted, down or up stroke/bow, vibrato, tremolo, etc. I would be 100% for implementing a standard that was more oriented toward basic articulations common to many instrument types, including non-orchestral instruments like hammered and plucked sounds, with the additional articulations available either as a separate CC or just further down on the list.

I can't say enough how much I agree that developers should try to work together in the name of standardization, and I really do applaud Spitfire's effort. I hope we can continue discussing how this standard can be iterated and improved upon by the dev community.


----------



## radec (May 3, 2013)

if the standard is limited to one cc 127 artics, maybe an idea would be to have artic cc#s that are considered overlap for each genre of instrument?

eg. to really simplify
orch library -
1 : long
2 : stacc
3 : spicc
4 : pizz
etc.

percussion - 
1 : hit
2 : roll
3 : flam
etc.

stringed instr. library 
1 : pluck
2 : strum
3 : slap
etc.

obviousl that massively simplifying it, but you get an idea.


----------



## Mike Connelly (May 3, 2013)

rgames @ Thu May 02 said:


> you won't achieve anything by doing that at the library level



Again, I don't disagree that there are advantages to DAW implementations like expression maps. But even if this proposal doesn't bring all the advantages, it certainly brings some of them. A more honest statement is "you won't achieve _everything_ by doing that at the library level".



> Will any DAW be able to show which articulation is currently selected in the MIDI editor? No. Will any DAW be able to correctly show articulation marks in the score editors?



While those are nice features, those aren't the only potential benefits of a universal standard. And while it may not be as elegant as expression maps, Logic should be able to set up something in the environment that shows articulations. It should also be possible to do with external iOS control, although it may require an app that's more advanced than touchosc.




> Why not just start at the DAW level and save yourself the time?



Here and elsewhere online, we are able to get in touch with developers and talk about things like this. I'd love to see Logic add expression maps, but how exactly do I go about getting in touch with them to make that request? Maybe someday the DAWs will all have this, but it could take years if ever, while doing it at the library level could happen much faster.

Not to mention that a number of libraries are able to do this already. Looks like vienna can do it easily. Cinebrass and Cinewinds it's possible now although the custom CCs only go up to 30 in the current versions. And with Kontakt there are a lot of possibilities for remapping data via scripting. But it would still be nice to see libraries supporting it natively.



zircon said:


> I hope we can continue discussing how this standard can be iterated and improved upon by the dev community.



Amen to this. So far it is fairly orchestral and string specific, but with input from other developers I think something more generally useful can be worked out. So any other developers brave enough to wade in to the discussion?


----------



## Blake Ewing (May 10, 2013)

Hi Paul,

In setting up a TouchOSC template for the UACC, I noticed that the 1/2 longs sustains from Loegria, and the octave leg from A1 aren't represented on the list.

And, when programmed, I can't seem to get the Albion 1 legato CS to respond (I'm on 4.2 btw), nor the sable 2 bartok pizz.

I'm happy to send a support message, if that's the appropriate channel for UACC stuff.

Thanks!


----------



## stevenson-again (May 11, 2013)

I have been working with my own custom standard for years - over 10 years.

I absolutely despise key switches. The most cack handed invention in the history of everything.

I have everything set up as program switches, including vienna stuff which requires some logic environment finegalling to make work.

This UACC is a brilliant idea, and something I advocated a couple of years ago, including standardising cc messages that control expression, vibrato, dynamics etc. I had a big thread on it here at VI control.

I use the same or as similar as possible program patch changes across all sections of the orchestra to allow for easy copy and pasting of articulation changes between instruments - not just of the same family. It is a massive workflow improver.


----------



## dgburns (May 11, 2013)

actually replying to everyone-

just thinking out loud here,but wouldn't it be great to have an ipad app that could do bi-directional communication with Kontakt,so the articulations would come up -named-onto the ipad based on the active instrument selected.No matter where the Kontakt instance actually was inserted,daw,vepro or whatever...

Seems the Spectrasonic omnisphere ipad app is a close idea to what I refer to here.

This way,it doesn't matter what the artics are,or are named,so long as you can SEE them right there in front of you.Seems this is the missing link,no?

I,for one,would prefer simplicity as such.Gotta be do-able....


----------



## muk (May 12, 2013)

This could be a huge timesaver, kudos to spitfire for coming up with this.
As I see it a standard at the library level has some benefits over the daw level only. Other daws might come up with sth similar to expression maps, and that's good for us. But it's no case against a library level standard. In fact, it'd be much easier to implement in the daws. In stead of making an expression map for every single library, you could have just one that works for many libraries. That's a time saver for the comsumer, and it's easier to implement for all daws that don't have expression map yet.
Plus there's not only daws. It'd be easier to integate the libraries into notation programs too.

The hard part, I guess, is creating an articulation classification that fits as many libraries as possible. For instance, it might be good to have dynamic patches on the list (sforzato, crescendo, dim (both at various lengths), fortepiano etc.)


----------



## Plasuma!!! (May 13, 2013)

stevenson-again @ Sat May 11 said:


> I absolutely despise key switches. The most cack handed invention in the history of everything.
> 
> I have everything set up as program switches, including vienna stuff which requires some logic environment finegalling to make work.


I have to ask - how are those program switches used? Knobs, buttons... mind control...?


----------



## stevenson-again (May 13, 2013)

I posted exactly how to in this thread: http://vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.p ... 089fac59c5

Basically record arm logic or your DAW and select your artic from the list you created as a custom bank list in your midi instrument. Easy peasy.


----------



## Mike Connelly (May 14, 2013)

Using progam changes instead of CC is a great idea, particularly the way the two are implemented in Logic, although with some hardware controllers it may be easier to get them to output CC values as opposed to program changes. Having Logic convert a CC to PC wouldn't be a bad workaround if needed, although it would be nice to avoid having to put transformers on all those tracks.

The latest version of LASS includes switching via program change, although I believe it uses the first few consecutive numbers as opposed to being able to customize different values to different switches.


----------



## wcreed51 (May 14, 2013)

On the other hand, program changes are not included in VST3...


----------



## Daryl (May 14, 2013)

wcreed51 @ Tue May 14 said:


> On the other hand, program changes are not included in VST3...


And on another hand, Logic can't use VST either..... :wink: 

D


----------



## FriFlo (May 14, 2013)

> f the standard is limited to one cc 127 artics, maybe an idea would be to have artic cc#s that are considered overlap for each genre of instrument?
> 
> eg. to really simplify
> orch library -
> ...



+1 Also, if you want to get most developers to go with it, it would have to be somewhat more generic, like legato 1, legato 2, etc. (think of Adagio). Then, with "only" 127 values you would need to overlap certain things, like con sordino for strings = harmon mute or stopped for brass. Woodwinds and brass on the other hand have flutter tung, which is not available for stings. Generally, there would have to be lots of generic spots in there for every developer to define his own exact setting, that fits his library perfectly. But I must say, I don't believe this will be accepted by many devs. It is a lot of work for them and they would not gain anything from it. Even if I wish this would become reality ...


----------



## jamwerks (May 14, 2013)

When you really think about it, with all the different ways to play, on all the different instruments, there are probably several hundred possible articulations. I don't see really the possibility of a standard.

I think user-defined (customized) control is how developers should program.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (May 14, 2013)

I support the idea of the simplified articulations as quoted above. In most any melodic library you will have some common elements. Sustain, vibrato, tremolo, mute, pizz, marc / stac, etc. Those will work for much more than just orchestral instruments - stuff like sitar, koto, banjo, acoustic guitar (and more) will all work as well.


----------



## sprout (Mar 7, 2016)

The link to the initial Spitfire UACC proposal shoots me to their home page. I cannot find it via Google. Can someone fix the link?

http://www.spitfireaudio.com/uacc-a-new-proposed-standard.html (http://www.spitfireaudio.com/uacc-a-new ... ndard.html)


----------



## jononotbono (Aug 20, 2017)

For the first time I have started looking into UACC. I use Cubase Pro 9 and just wondering how it compares to Expression maps and whether every Spitfire library has the same UACC mappings for articulations? I'm a little bit confused how to make this work with an iPad at the minute.


----------



## jamwerks (Aug 20, 2017)

IINM all of SF libraries have implemented UACC. In Albion V (Tundra) there are all very unique arts but SF has wisely ascribed different UACC numbers to each art. UACC can be used in conjunction with expression maps (I do).


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Aug 21, 2017)

UACC is helpful.
Not hard to trigger on an IPad: just send a CC message on channel 32, with the value corresponding to the desired articulation (make sure to first assign your SF patch to receiving UACC)
What I haven't figured out is how to use the UACC KS (key switch) feature, which allows for simultaneous use of several articulations.
I looked on the SF site to find a "how-to" explanation but could never locate it...


----------



## jononotbono (Aug 21, 2017)

I've decided I'm not going to use it. Better the devil you know and all that!


----------

